DELIBERATELY DESTROYED DOCUMENTS IN LITIGATION, ADVERSE INFERENCES AND… REINDEERS
In the judgment today in Active Media Services Inc v Burmester, Duncker & Joly GmbH & Co Kg & Ors [2021] EWHC 232 (Comm) Mr Justice Calver considered the inferences that should be drawn when he found that a party…
INEFFECTIVE REDACTION IN DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS: A WARNING TO ALL LITIGATORS (AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES…)
Sometimes documents can be redacted. The judgment of Mr Justice Pepperall in London Borough of Lambeth v AM (Judgment No. 2) [2021] EWHC 186 (QB) shows that great care must be taken in “redacted” documents provided electronically. THE CASE The…
PROVING THINGS 198: “NOT RELIABLE EVIDENCE”: THOSE EMAILS MAY NOT BE ALL THEY SEEM
In Richards v Harvey [2021] EWHC 21 (Ch) HHJ Cooke, doubted the authenticity of emails relied upon by the claimant. It is a reminder of the importance of a notice to prove. “This document is not reliable evidence of…
THE APPROACH OF THE COURT AT TRIAL WHEN A PARTY HAS NOT GIVEN DISCLOSURE: THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT IS AGAINST THEM
In Aegean Baltic Bank SA v Renzlor Shipping Ltd [2020] EWHC 2851 (Comm) Mr Adrian Beltrami QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the appropriate approach at trial when a party has been debarred from calling evidence….
CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS: A REMINDER OF THE BASIC RULES: IF YOU DON’T DISPUTE YOU ARE DEEMED TO ADMIT AUTHENTICITY
Earlier posts have looked at the importance of serving a notice of non-admittance of the authenticity of documents promptly. Here we look at the basics of the rule. Put bluntly if you do not serve a notice that you wish…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED FOLLOWING FAILURES ON DISCLOSURE: THE DEPP TRIAL IS BACK AFLOAT
Last week I wrote on the latest episode of the Depp case. Mr Justice Nicol held that there had been a failure to comply with a peremptory order on disclosure and the Mr Depp’s case stood struck out. Today it…
DEPP, DISCLOSURE, TEXT & TESTS: CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER : CLAIMANT’S CASE NOW ALL AT SEA
In Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1689 (QB) Mr Justice Nicol held that the claimant’s case stood struck out because of a failure to give disclosure. There are important observations about the scope of disclosure….
THE SOLICITOR’S DUTY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS IN LITIGATION: AN INTERESTING POSTSCRIPT
There is an interesting postcript to the judgment of Jon Turner Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Square Global Ltd v Leonard [2020] EWHC 1008 (QB. “It is fundamental that the client must not make the selection…
DEFENCE STRUCK OUT FOLLOWING FAILURE TO GIVE FULL DISCLOSURE: SEVERE SANCTION WAS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE
In MKG Convenience Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 547 (Ch) HHJ David Cooke refused the defendants’ application for relief from sanctions following a failure to comply with a peremptory order in relation to disclosure. The sanction was severe, however the circumstances…
THE DISCLOSURE PILOT: GUIDANCE GIVEN AS TO HOW IT SHOULD WORK: NOT A STICK WITH WHICH TO BEAT YOUR OPPONENT
There are two recent cases where the disclosure pilot is considered in detail. In McParland & Partners Ltd & Anor v Whitehead [2020] EWHC 298 (Ch) Sir Geoffrey Vos. Chancellor of the High Court set out some definitive guidance as…
GDPR AND THE CIVIL LITIGATOR (1) : USEFUL LINKS FOR LITIGATORS
The post earlier this week that highlighted the fact that an applicant had spent £40,000 unsuccessfully trying to obtain documents that would have been freely available under GDPR has led me to contemplate a series of articles on litigators and…
SEEKING FURTHER DISCLOSURE: DON’T GO IMPORTING STONES FROM A NEIGHBOURING QUARRY: DISCLOSURE PILOT PREVAILS
In Maher v Maher & Anor [2019] EWHC 3613 (Ch) HHJ Hodge (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused an application for disclosure. There are a number of important points here, including the need for an application for further disclosure to…
APPLICATION FOR PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: COURT’S DISCRETION EXERCISED AGAINST THE APPLICANT
In Hussain v Medical Defence Union & Anor [2020] EWHC 157 (QB) Clive Sheldon QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused an application for pre-action disclosure. This judgment makes it clear that pre-action disclosure is, ultimately, a matter of…
PROVING THINGS 171: A TALE OF TWO TELEVISION PRESENTERS (AND OF A CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL ON VITAL ISSUES)
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal in the case of Ahmed -v- BBC (10th January 2019) has already received wide publicity. It is worthwhile looking at the paucity, often the total absence of evidence, on many key issues on the…
THE COURT WOULD NOT EXTEND THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT TO ALLOW CLAIMANT TO SEEK TO RECOVER SUMS FROM A THIRD PARTY
The interesting thing about writing a blog on civil procedure is that – despite the apparent narrowness of the subject – new issues come up all the time. You can never say you have “seen it all”. I was reading…
COURT ADMITS CLAIMANT’S TAPES OF CONSULTATIONS WITH DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS: PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHS REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT
In Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) Master Davison allowed the claimant to produce as evidence the tapes they had recorded of their consultations with the defendant’s medical experts. This decision raises some interesting issues. (The case…
REDACTION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO BE DISCOURAGED: THINGS COULD TURN OUT BADLY FOR THE REDACTOR
In Nicoll v Promontoria (Ram 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch) Mr Justice Mann was critical of a decision to redact elements of documents disclosed in an application to set aside a statutory demand. “unnecessary and inappropriate redactions are…
AN ABSOLUTE CAR CRASH OF AN APPEAL: KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE THE THE JUDGE – A BASIC ISSUE FOR ALL WOULD BE APPELLANTS
Appeals are always difficult. The appellate court has to be persuaded that the first-instance judge was “wrong”, and this is a fairly rigorous test. It is made far more difficult if the appellate court is given the wrong documents. Particularly…
PROVING THINGS 161: DOCUMENTS BEING DELIBERATELY DESTROYED AND EXPERTS WHO WERE OF VERY LIMITED ASSISTANCE
The judgment in Bajaj Healthcare Ltd v Fine Organics Ltd [2019] EWHC 2316 (Ch) is in what could appear to be a fairly dry dispute about the supply of goods. As the judge observed this was not a simple sale…
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: MENTION MUST MEAN “SPECIFICALLY MENTION”
The judgment in Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) also considered, and rejected, the claimant’s application for specific disclosure of documents. Mr Justice Warby held that for an order to be made under CPR 31.15 there must be…
