IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO TURN UP FOR COURT DON’T EXPECT MUCH SYMPATHY: COUNCIL TOLD TO GET ON ITS BIKE
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Camden Borough Council -v- Humphreys [2017] EWCA Civ 24 illustrates the danger of a party deciding not to attend a hearing. THE CASE A recipient of a parking ticket, Mr Humphreys, had…
THE FIRST BUNDLE CASE FOR 2017: A BUNDLE THAT WAS NEVER DISCLOSED AND HAS GONE MISSING
At some time during the year there is bound to be a judgment about bundles. However the judgment of the Court of Appeal today in Iqbal -v-Iqbal [2017] EWCA Civ 19 contains a great surprise. Amongst other problems with the…
THOSE LETTERS: DEAR JUDGE – YOU WERE WRONG – PLEASE CHANGE YOUR MIND: ONLY IN THE MOST EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
There is an interesting postscript to the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Goyal -v- Goyal [2017] EWFC 1. It relates to the practice of using letters to the judge in an attempt to alter the terms of a draft…
EVIDENCE, PROPORTIONALITY AND PREMIUMS II: NO SAVING OF ENERGY HERE
We have already looked at the judgment of Master Haworth in Savings Advice Limited -v- EDF Energy Customers Ltd [2017] EWHC B1 (Costs) in relation to the admissibility of evidence. Here we look at the judgment in relation to calculation of…
EXPERT WATCH II: ATTEMPTS TO SNEAK THE EVIDENCE IN
There are some examples of ingenious attempts to introduce expert evidence into cases. Mr Justice Arnold commented on this in his judgment in Teva UK Ltd -v- Gilead Sciences Inc [2017] EWHC 13 (Pat). A “factual” report from an expert is…
PROVING THINGS 47: FIRE IN THE LOFT: IT WASN’T THE MOUSE MAN AT ALL
The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Palmer -v- Nightingale [2016] EWHC 2800 (TCC) is another example of a claimant failing to prove their case. More curiously, in some respects, the claimant’s own evidence contradicted their case. “In circumstances where there…
LAWYERS, LITIGATION AND MEMORY III: THE GESTMIN PRINCIPLES APPLIED
“This may be an interesting year for the consideration of issues relating to the accuracy of memory. An interesting case where the relevant principles were considered in detail can be found in the judgment in EF -v- The Catholic…
LAWYERS, LITIGATION & MEMORY II: HOW YOU ARE AFFECTING THE MEMORY OF WITNESSES (AND POSSIBLY SOWING THE SEEDS FOR DEFEAT)
The post on “Lawyers, litigation and memory”clearly struck a chord. It had many hundreds of readers (on a Sunday too). It highlights the fact that a failure to be trained in, and consider, issues relating to memory, causes litigators numerous…
IF YOU ARE BELIEVED YOU WILL WIN: THE NEED FOR A DEVIL'S ADVOCATE IN CIVIL LITIGATION
The post written yesterday on litigators and memory has already given rise to a large number of responses, particularly on Twitter. It is worthwhile taking the matter further by considering how and when a litigator should take stock of the quality…
LAWYERS, LITIGATION & MEMORY: THE MEMORY ILLUSION
A single moment of logical thought will lead to the conclusion that it is strange that lawyers don’t learn about memory. Much (indeed most) litigation relies on the memory of the parties. Judges are, more often than not, called upon…
CIVIL CASE OF THE YEAR 2016: THE CASE THAT ENCAPSULATES CIVIL EVIDENCE: HOW THE COURT DECIDES
There were many important cases on procedure and costs in 2016. Choosing a case of importance to litigators was not an easy task. However I kept coming back to the judgment of Master Matthews in Adepoju -v- Akinola [2016] EWHC 3160…
CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2016: PROMISCUOUS BUNDLES & THAT CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED PROPORTIONALITY
This is the third annual review of the year on this blog. 2016, as ever, has been an interesting year. As ever, a comprehensive review can be found in Herbert Smith Freehills A litigator’s yearbook: 2016 (England and Wales). PREDICTIONS…
ADVERSE INFERENCES NOT DRAWN WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE
There are several posts on the blog which deal with the approach the trial judge takes when certain witnesses are not present. In some cases it leads the judge to draw adverse inferences, in others it does not. In Welds…
PROVING THINGS 46: LATE THEORIES ADVANCED BY EXPERTS RARELY HELP
Some aspects of litigation are highly reliant upon experts. Medical causation is on of those areas. The issues between experts should be clarified in the joint statement. In Smith -v- Tesco PLC & Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2016]…
PROVING THINGS 45: IF YOU CAN'T PROVE LOSS THE DEFENDANT IS GOING TO GET SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This series (and this blog) have looked at several cases where a party has asserted a loss but not been able to prove it. There are a large number of cases where a party fails to put the basic information…
PROVING THINGS 44: FINDINGS OF FACT, WALTER MITTY AND WITNESS TRAINING
The judgment today of Mr Justice Coulson in Harlequin Property (SVG) Limited -v- Wilkins Kennedy [2016] 3188 EWHC (TCC) shows the importance of the judge’s assessment of witnesses. The judge made a clear and robust assessment of the witness evidence,…
PROVING THINGS 43: HOW THE COURT DECIDES: A PRIMER
The judgment of Master Matthews in Adepoju -v- Akinola [2016] EWHC 3160 (Ch) includes a useful primer on how the court goes about the task of deciding civil cases. “…the decision of the court is not necessarily the objective truth…
PROVING THINGS 42: SILENCE DOES NOT PROVE INDUCEMENT
We are returning to the case of Francis -v- Knapper [2016] EWHC 3093 (QB). That case has been looked at in relation to a failure to prove damages. However the claimants also had major evidential problems in proving misrepresentation. KEY POINTS…
PROVING THINGS 41: PROVING DAMAGES – YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY
There was one part of the argument in Francis -v- Knapper [2016] EWHC 3093 (QB) that justifies closer examination. That is the claimant’s suggestion that the question of damages be put off. A party struggling to prove damages at trial is…
WHY ALL LAWYERS HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE FALLIBILITY OF MEMORY (EVEN COMPANY LAWYERS)
I have written about the Gestmin principles many times on this blog. The importance of every litigator knowing about the fallibility of memory, and the way in which a trial judge is likely to approach these issues, is shown in the judgment…
PROVING THINGS 39: YOU CAN SPEND £10 MILLION IN COSTS AND STILL NOT PROVE YOUR CASE: DAMAGES CLAIM WAS A "NOTIONAL DESKTOP EXERCISE"
It is unusual to look at the substantive judgment in a case after examining the decision on costs. We have already looked at the cost judgment in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496. However the substantive…
INTERPRETERS CANNOT (AND WOULD NOT) BE COMPELLED TO ATTEND TRIAL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION
The case of Kimathi -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3004 (QB) has already featured several times on this blog. Here we look at the judgment made last week relating to the defendant’s application that interpreters attend trial…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: THE BEHRENS' EFFECT
His Honour Judge Behrens, the resident Chancery judge in Leeds, retires tomorrow. This led me to consider the contribution he has made to civil procedure. JOHN BEHRENS AT THE BAR I could begin by telling of the meticulous neatness of…
PROVING THINGS 38: PROVING INABILITY TO PAY ON A SECURITY FOR COSTS APPLICATION
A party opposing an application for security costs sometimes has to argue that the ordering of security would “stifle” a genuine claim. This means giving evidence as to that party’s inability to pay. This test was considered by Mr Richard…
WITNESS STATEMENT OF OPINION IS OF NO ASSISTANCE AND WAS NOT ADMITTED
There is a telling passage in the judgment of Richard Salter QC in St Vincent European General Partner Ltd -v- Robinson [2016] EWHC 2920 (Comm). A statement of bare opinion, with nothing to support it, was not admitted in evidence….
PROVING THINGS 36: CREDIBILITY & CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS: WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
One of my colleagues tweeted that the judgment in Harris -v-Miller [2016] EWHC 2438 (QB) was “short on the law and long on the facts”. This is a correct assessment. The case shows just how important the facts are in…
WHAT IS MEANT BY AN "INDEPENDENT" EXPERT? CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK III
In Hopkinson -v- Hickton [2016] EWCA Civ 1057 the Court of Appeal considered what was meant by an “independent” expert. KEY POINTS The fact that a valuer, appointed to value a property by the parties under the terms of a…
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LAWYER AND EXPERT: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK II
We have already looked at the decision of Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman [2016] CAT 21 in relation to costs budgeting. Here I want to isolate one aspect of that budgeting exercise – in relation to…
EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK 1
In Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca -v- Xstrate Limited [2016] EWHC 2757 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett refused an application to rely on an expert witness. The case was unusual, however the principles are universal. The questions were whether there was an…
THE PARTIES CANNOT CONTRACT OUT OF COSTS BUDGETING (& A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE)
An earlier post dealt with the decision of Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman [2016] CAT 21. However an earlier ruling in the same case contains a consideration of whether the parties can agree to sidestep budgeting….
SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE A BREACH OF ARTICLE 8 RIGHTS: ECHR DECISION
In Vukota-Bojic -v- Switzerland the European Court held that the surveillance of an insurance claimant represented a breach of Article 8 rights (but use of that evidence at a hearing was not a breach of Article 6 rights). It could…
PROVING THINGS 35: RECONSTRUCTION, DOCUMENTS AND MEMORY
Most law reports will look at the findings of law made in a judgment. In this blog we are interested in findings of fact and the way in which a judge goes about making those findings. A good example can…
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SOLICITORS THAT PROBABLY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE: CONSPIRACY, DISHONESTY AND DECEIT – ASSERTIONS THAT WERE JUST UNTRUE
There have been a number of recent cases of property companies, who have lost heavily in the property market, seeking to recover from solicitors (not necessarily always their own solicitors) for those losses. This trend can be seen -…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHEN THINGS GO WRONG – BLAME THE SOLICITOR
This blog has noted before that a witness whose evidence is not accepted often attempts to renege on their witness statement and blame their solicitor for the errors. Another example can be found in the recent decision of Mr Recorder…
PROVING THINGS 31: WITNESSES TEND TO REMEMBER WHAT THEY WANT TO REMEMBER
How do judges decide whether a witness is accurate in their recollection? This issue has been a common theme on this blog. This was an issue considered by Mark Cawson QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in The Connaught…
THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM ABSENT WITNESSES: EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT OVERRIDES HEARSAY
This blog has looked many times at cases which consider the practical implication of the test in Central Manchester Health Authority v W (A minor) [1998] PIQR P324: the inferences a trial judge should infer when witnesses are noted called at…
CANAL TRUST’S ATTEMPTS TO BARGE OVER WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE IS SUNK WITHOUT TRACE: NO WATERING DOWN OF THE PRINCIPLES
Can a party refer to without prejudice correspondence at interlocutory hearings? The previous post looked at the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) in relation to the issue of McKenzie friends….
PROVING THINGS 30: OFFICE GOSSIP PROVES NOTHING: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
There is a requirement, a mandatory requirement, that a witness making a witness statement gives the source of their information and belief. This requirement is often ignored, or there is some vague and general wording of knowledge. Ignoring, and respecting,…
WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT ARE LARGELY DISREGARDED: A CASE IN POINT
Witness statements are often too long, contain inadmissible evidence and tendentious comments. An example can be see in the judgment in Moore -v- Moore [2016] EWHC 2202 (Ch) Mr S Monty QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHEN CAN A LAY WITNESS GIVE OPINION EVIDENCE?THE STATUTE, THE CASES & SOME GUIDANCE
I have written, many times, about the dangers of putting opinion evidence into witness statements. The attempts of witnesses to be experts, or to tell the judge what the outcome of the case should be, can lead to robust adverse…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE LAWYER'S DUTIES: A FAMILY CASE
There are some observations in the judgment in Hampshire County Council -v- O [2016] EW B22 (CC) that are of general importance. It relates to the duty of lawyers to ensure that witness statements are full and adequate. “It is…
YOU ARE PAYING YOUR WITNESSES BY RESULTS: WE WANT TO STRIKE YOU OUT
The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in EnergySolutions EU Limited -v- Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2016] EWHC 1988 (TCC) is a highly technical analysis of procurement legislation in an action that had already had a somewhat tortuous procedural history. However I…
PROVING THINGS 29: MAKE SURE THE WITNESS EVIDENCE DEALS WITH THE RELEVANT ISSUES
In Re B (a minor) (habitual residence) [2016] EWHC 2174 (Fam) Mr Justice Hayden had some important observations on the preparation of witness evidence. Although made in a family case the comments are of general observation: those who take witness…
YOUR WITNESSES ARE LINED UP ALL IN A ROW: THEN YOU MAY BE IN TROUBLE
Many cases have many witnesses saying, essentially, the same thing. Inconsistencies between witnesses are (often subconsciously) ironed out by lawyers during the statement stage. However consistency is not always a good thing. WHEN WITNESSES AGREE 100%: THEY’RE PROBABLY WRONG This…
FRAUDULENT CLAIMANTS AND THE NEED FOR SELF-PROTECTION BY LAWYERS
A report in Litigation Futures last week illustrates the need for “self protection” by lawyers. The headline says it all “Insurance Fraudster who tried to blame his solicitor jailed for 18 months”. “IT WAS ALL MY SOLICITOR’S FAULT” The claimant…
STATING THAT YOU ARE NOT WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT IS FAR FROM CONCLUSIVE
There are several reasons litigators should read the judgment of Master Matthews in Coral Reef Limited -v- Silverbond Enterprise Limited [2016] EWHC 874 Ch. For the discussion of whether a Master is bound by the decision of a High Court…
AN EXPERT DISPLAYING ZEALOTRY IS NO HELP AT ALL (AND USUALLY HARMFUL)
In the Matter of F (a Minor) EWHC 2149 (Fam)Mr Justice Hayden had to consider whether an expert report should be admitted in a family case. The comments on the expert evidence are of general relevance. “The overall impression is…
REVISITING WHITEHOUSE -v- JORDAN 2: ON THE LAWYERS DRAFTING THE EXPERTS' REPORTS
The first post in this series on the judgments in Whitehouse -v- Jordan in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords looked at the point that, at the appeal stage, the courts were only concerned with whether they could…
RE-VISITING WHITEHOUSE -v- JORDAN 1: THESE APPEALS WERE NOT ABOUT CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AT ALL: IT’S ALL ABOUT THE FACTS
The decisions of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Whitehouse -v- Jordan are often put forward as seminal cases in the law of clinical negligence. However these appeals, in reality, were not about issues relating to clinical…
THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 4: DON'T MAKE ALLEGATIONS OF LYING IF YOU HAVEN'T PUT THEM TO THE WITNESS
The previous posts* on the Arroyo judgment have concentrated, for the most part, on the judge’s criticisms of the evidence of the claimant. However there is one short passage which illustrates an important principle of litigation – a party cannot…
You must be logged in to post a comment.