WHEN A WITNESS GIVES DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS IN DIFFERENT STATEMENTS IT RARELY HELPS THEIR CASE: JUDGE FINDS IT “UNIMPRESSIVE”
In Parry v Johnson & Anor (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 889 (QB) Mr Justice Ritchie considered the evidence of the defendant driver in a road traffic case. The defendant’s different accounts on different occasions did not help his cause. The judge…
JUDGE REFUSES TO RECONSIDER CRITICISMS OF EXPERT WITNESS IN A JUDGMENT: EXPERT DUTIES CANNOT BE DELEGATED
In Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Generics UK Ltd (t\a MYLAN) [2020] EWHC 3270 (Pat) Mr Justice Marcus Smith made some observations about the role of the expert witness and the importance of their evidence being criticised in…
SIMILAR WITNESS STATEMENTS (WITH THE SAME TYPOS) AND WITNESS CONFERRING WITH OTHERS: WHY “I SAY THE SAME AS THEM” RARELY HELPS
In the judgment today in Dr Jones Yeovil Ltd v The Stepping Stone Group Ltd [2020] EWHC 2308 (TCC) HHJ Russen QC (sitting as a High Court judge) made some observations about the witnesses giving evidence. The fact that some…
PROVING THINGS 177: WHEN YOU ARE RELYING ON A MEDICAL EXPERT ON CAUSATION WHO “SHOOTS FROM THE HIP” (IT DOESN’T END WELL)
I have written many times about issues arising from expert witnesses. In clinical negligence cases the role of the expert witness is often paramount. The claimant, in particular, is almost wholly reliant on expert evidence in relation to causation. It…
AN EXPERT WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST: SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED
I am giving a webinar on the 29th June 2020 on the Perils and Pitfalls of Expert Evidence. I have not found that there is any shortage of material. That material is added to in the judgment of Mr Justice…
COVID REPEATS 41: OFFICE GOSSIP IS NOT EVIDENCE
This week we continue with our look back at cases in relation to witness evidence. This contains another reminder that there is a requirement, a mandatory requirement, that a witness making a witness statement gives the source of their information…
LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS SUMMARIES: HERE’S AN INGENIOUS ARGUMENT – THAT DIDN’T WORK: PERMISSION TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FROM PARTIES OWN WITNESS ALSO REFUSED
In Smith & Anor v Crawshay [2019] EWHC 2507 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews considered an argument that the defendant was allowed to rely on a witness summary. He also refused permission to adduce further evidence in evidence-in-chief from a witness…
PROVING THINGS 162: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE THE COMMONS TOUCH
Constitutional lawyers will be writing about the Supreme Court decision today for decades to come. However I want to look at the more basic issue of the evidence that was placed before the courts. This was not a case…
THE EXPERT AS ADVOCATE AND PROVIDING “CRITICAL COMMENTARY”: IMPORTANT POINTS ON THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS TO TAKE AWAY
There are some interesting comments on experts in the judgment of Matthew Gullick (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Pepe’s Piri Piri Ltd & Anor v Junaid & Ors [2019] EWHC 2097. “It is not part of the duty…
WHO IS AN EXPERT? NOW THERE’S A QUESTION: DEFINITIONS OF “EXPERT” CONSIDERED
The collapse of the “carbon credit fraud” prosecution today because an “expert” was found out to have no actual expertise leads to consideration of how exactly the courts define an “expert” . This does not give rise to a straightforward…
PROVING THINGS 152: CLAIMANT, BRINGING ACTION 50 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT, NOT QUITE THROWN TO THE WOLVES, BUT…
Davies v Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club (1986) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1252 (Ch) is an example of a case that rested on a very thin strand of , as it turned out extremely flimsy, evidence. “He is giving evidence about events…
WHY THE LYING LITIGANT SHOULD FRET: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONTEMPT: WHEN FACEBOOK FLATLY CONTRADICTS PART 18 REPLIES
In Zurich Insurance Plc v Romaine [2019] EWCA Civ 851 allowed an appeal by an insurer so that an application for committal for contempt of court can proceed. No substantive findings of fact have been made. The judgment shows that…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 44: JUST DON’T WRITE RUDE THINGS : LANGUAGE THAT IS “FAR REMOVED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESY THAT SOLICITORS ARE EXPECTED TO SHOW EACH OTHER”
Don’t write rude things. Not even in internal emails or texts. One day it may (and probably will) come back to haunt you. Read the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke in ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor…
WHEN THINGS GO WRONG FOR A DEFENDANT AT TRIAL: FOUR LESSONS FROM ONE CASE: WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO STATES THEY ARE “BIASED”…
In Hanbury & Anor v Hugh James Solicitors (a firm) [2019] EWHC 1074 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip found that a firm of solicitors had been negligent in its conduct of a fatal accident case. There are a number of lessons…
DOES THE BASIC LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE RUN IN THE IMMIGRATION IMMIGRATION UPPER TRIBUNAL? A MATTER OF CONCERN TO US ALL
The Immigration Upper Tribunal does not appear to recognise some of the basic principles of civil evidence and appellate jurisdiction. Certainly this is the impression you get when reading the judgment of Lord Justice Davis in Palash v Secretary of…
PROVING THINGS 135: WHAT A DIFFERENCE CROSS-EXAMINATION CAN MAKE
There has been much controversy recently about the need for cross-examination when allegations are made. I have no intention of entering that controversy, however those who want to be fully informed on these matters should read the judgment of Mr…
CROSS-EXAMINATION: THE DUTY TO PUT A CASE: A GEM OF A DECISION
In W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV [2018] EWCA Civ 2640 the Court of Appeal made an important observation about the duty of a cross-examiner to put their client’s case to an opposing witness. This provides an opportunity…
GOOD IDEAS FROM WESTERN AUSTRALIA: WITNESS STATEMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND CONFINING THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN CIVIL LITIGATION
A while back I wrote a post pointing out guidance on drafting witness statements given by the Western Australian Bar Association. I am grateful to Australian barrister David Laws for pointing out the new site where this guidance can be…
REVEALING THE TRUE IDENTITY OF A WITNESS IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: APPLICATION FOR ANONYMITY SCUTTLED
In the judgment today in Suez Fortune Investments Ltd & Anor v Talbot Underwriting Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2929 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare allowed an application by the defendants that the true identity of a witness be disclosed. The witness…
EXTENSIVE WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS OF NO USE: A COMMON FINDING
We have already looked at the judgment of Mrs Justice Cockerill in Recovery Partners GP Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors [2018] EWHC 2918 (Comm). It is worth looking at what the judge had to say about the witness evidence before…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 4: THE APPROACH TO WITNESS EVIDENCE: MEMORIES ARE FLUID AND MALLEABLE: SOME KEY POINTS ON GESTMIN
This is the fourth in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The trial judge was looking at evidence of matters that had happened some 50 years earlier,…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, ACCURATE EVIDENCE AND A REMARKABLE CHANGE OF ACCOUNT BY THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS
The judgment in Britchford v Staffordshire And Stoke-On-Trent Partnership NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 2109 (QB) is another example of a clinical negligence claim that rested on the accuracy of medical evidence. A feature of the case is that the claimant did…
FAILING TO TAKE A PROPER PROOF OF EVIDENCE IS UNREASONABLE CONDUCT AND LEADS TO COSTS CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFENDANT – EVEN WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES
The judgment today in Harrap v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1063 (QB) illustrates the importance of taking adequate witness statements. It shows that a failure to review the situation and take a full proof of evidence…
PROVING THINGS 67: THE DIFFICULTIES WHEN WITNESSES DEPARTS FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT: MULTIPLE INCONSISTENCIES DAMAGE CREDIBILITY
I am grateful to my colleague Colm Nugent for sending me a copy of the decision in Baker -v- British Gas Services (Commercial) Limited [2017] EWHC 2302. Amanda Yip QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court*), considered…
MEMORIES, WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE: A SCIENTIFIC VIEW: WHAT EXPERTS WISH YOU KNEW
I have written before about the issue of memory and witness evidence. I have also written about the work of Dr Julia Shaw on this subject. More guidance can be found in her article in the Scientific American What Experts…
THE DANGERS OF SELECTIVE WITNESS EVIDENCE: WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS “UNSATISFACTORY” AND “SIMPLY NOT RELIABLE”
I am returning for the third time (and not the last time) to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC). We have already looked at the (relatively mild) criticisms of…
APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL TO ALLOW LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AT TRIAL: CLAIMANT’S APPEAL DISMISSED
There are a surprising number of cases and appeals in relation to late service of witness evidence. In Byrne -v- Mullan [2017] EWHC 1387 (Ch) the claimant made an application to adduce new witness evidence which was heard on the…
WHEN THE WITNESSES ALL SAY THE SAME THING: A RECAP
There has been some discussion on Twitter this morning about the issues that arise when witnesses make statements that are, to all intents and purposes, identical. It provides an opportunity to look at some cases on this issue. They make…
BANKS, WITNESSES AND CREDIBILITY: AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT
There are many reasons why lawyers should read the decision in Thomas -v- Triodos Bank NV [2017] EWHC 314 (QB). There is an interesting consideration of the duty of care a bank owes a customer and the Hedley Byrne principles….
WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL SIGNS A “CARELESS” WITNESS STATEMENT THAT WAS “FALSE AND TENDED TO MISLEAD”: NOT IMPRESSIVE TO SAY THE LEAST
There are many cases that show a surprisingly insouciant approach to accuracy by those who draft, and those who sign, witness statements. This insouciance is even more surprising when the person who has signed the statement is a public official,…
“SOLICITOR FORCING ME TO SIGN AN INCORRECT WITNESS STATEMENT”: A VERY FRIGHTENING SEARCH TERM
It is possible to see some of the search terms that lead people to this blog (I should stress that there are no details of who made the search). One of the search terms yesterday was “solicitor forcing me to…
WHERE DOES THE TRUTH LIE? GESTMIN IN THE FAMILY COURTS
This blog has looked at the “Gestmin” guidance many times. I am grateful to Lucy Reed for pointing out that it has been considered in the context of family law. In Lachaux -v- Lachaux [2017] EWHC 385 (Fam) Mr Justice…
WITNESS STATEMENTS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: IDENTICAL WITNESS STATEMENTS DID NOT DAMAGE CREDIBILITY (THIS TIME)
I spent a day this week giving a seminar to a specialist group of clinical negligence lawyers on the importance of witness statements. I mention this because, as always happens, there is a clear example of this in the judgment…
ALL THE WITNESSES SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING 10 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE (AND NOT BELIEVED)
In Patel -v- Patel [2017] Andrew Simmonds QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) was considering the credibility of witnesses. The case is an interesting read in that it sets out detail of some of the cross-examination. It…
PROVING THINGS 28: MAKE UNWARRANTED PERSONAL ATTACKS AND USE A "MUD-SLINGING" EXPERT: THAT ALWAYS ENDS WELL
The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Scott -v- E.A.R. Sheppard Consulting & Civil Engineering Ltd [2016] 1949 (TCC) contains some surprising observations. It also contains important lessons in relation to “conspiracy” theories in litigation and the role of the…
THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 3: WITNESSES AND CREDIBILITY
This is the third in the series of posts on the judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC. The first looked at the issues that arose from unchecked schedules of damages; the second at the…
EVIDENCE AND ACCURACY OF RECOLLECTION: ANOTHER EXAMPLE IN THE HIGH COURT
The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in Jacobs -v- King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 121 (QB) is another example of a case resting on the accuracy of recollection of a witness. Further the judge rejected a “statistical”…
WITNESS EVIDENCE AND CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS 2: A USEFUL COUNTERBALANCE
A post earlier this month looked at a case where the judge favoured the witness evidence over a written medical record. The decision in Grimstone -v- Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 3756 (QB) is a…
SOME WITNESSES MAY NOT BE GOOD HISTORIANS BUT GOOD HISTORIANS CANNOT BE WITNESSES
In Kimathi -v- Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2015]EWHC 3432 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart considered a number of issues relating to witness statements. Here we consider whether the evidence of historians is admissible. Other aspects of this case will be examined…
THE LYING WITNESS: THE APPROACH OF THE CIVIL COURTS
Mr Justice Smith has observed that “witnesses can regularly lie”. How do lies impact upon the judge’s assessment of that witness and the case generally. Further problems occur when both parties are lying. Here we look at some of the important judgments…
HOW THE COURT ASSESSES WITNESSES: NOT A NUMBERS GAME
In TM -v- St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 1866 (QB) Sir David Eady considered the judicial approach to witnesses and the burden of proof, stressing that the assessment of evidence is not a “numbers game”, THE CASE The…
DECIDING CASES ON PAPER: WOODLANDS, EVIDENCE & DECIDING CASES "ONLINE"
The decision in Woodland -v- Maxwell looked at in an earlier blog is interesting because it is one of the rare cases where the Court of Appeal carried out a (brief) analysis of the evidence in the case more than…
PROVING MATTERS BY EVIDENCE: A LESSON FROM THE FAMILY COURT
It is certain that most lawyers involved in childcare matters will read the decision of Sir James Munby in Darlington Borough Council -v- M [2015] EWFC 11. However there are points made in that judgment of general relevance to all…
WHO SAYS THAT YOU'LL WIN NOTHING WITH KIDS? THE WITNESS EVIDENCE IN WOODLAND -v- MAXWELL CONSIDERED
The case of Woodland -v- Maxwell [2015] EWHC 273 (QB) is almost a procedural epic. It has involved one trip to the Court of Appeal to allow a withdrawal of admissions and a further trip to the Supreme Court on…
IN A DOG EAT DOG WORLD MAKE SURE YOU GET YOUR WITNESS STATEMENTS RIGHT (OR DON'T LET YOUR WITNESSES RABBIT ON WITHOUT GOOD EVIDENCE)
The judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in Supreme Petfoods Limited -v- Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Limited [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch) contains a detailed analysis of the law relating to trade marks. Thanks to technology the judgment contains some vivid…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY: WHAT FACTORS DOES THE COURT LOOK AT? ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM THE MERCANTILE COURT
The case of Excelerate Technology Ltd -v- Cumberbatch [2015] EWHC B1 Mercantile was looked at in an earlier post in relation to the judge’s observations about the costs budget*. It did, however, contain important observations about the way in which judges assess…
GORDON RAMSAY CASE AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: ABSENCE OF KEY WITNESSES DOES NOT LEAD TO TURNING UP OF THE HEAT
The case of Gordon Ramsay -v- Gary Love [2015] EWHC 65 (Ch) has had much attention in the media, primarily because of the identity of the claimant. However the judge made important observations as to the inferences that can be…
WITNESS "PREPARATION" IN A CIVIL CONTEXT: HOW DO WE HELP THE UNDERDOG WHILST WORKING ON A SHOESTRING?
The controversy surrounding the new guidelines by the CPS for the preparation of witnesses in serious cases has led me to consider the rules and principles relating to witness preparation in the context of civil litigation. This is always a…
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND WITNESS CREDIBILITY: GETTING BACK TO BASICS
If a litigant takes a matter to trial and the result rests, ultimately, on witness evidence, then those advising must (or at least should) have a clear and certain grasp of the factors governing witness credibility. This issue is almost…
EVIDENCE, EXPERTS & ARSON: ANALYSING THE EVIDENCE WHEN SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE IN A CIVIL CASE
The decision of H.H. Judge Mackie Q.C. in Geneisuj.Net Limited -v- Allianz Insurance Limited [2014] EWHC 3676 (QB) provides an object lesson in the analysis of evidence in a case where serious allegations were being made. THE ISSUES The claimant…
You must be logged in to post a comment.