CIVIL PROCEDURE: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP – JUNE 2020
A round up of posts and articles about costs, procedure and evidence from June 2020. (Matters relating to Coronavirus and civil procedure will be dealt with in a separate post). Costs Litigation Futures – QC’s £1.5m brief fee for nine months’…
WITNESS STATEMENTS “NOT IN MY STOCK IN TRADE”: HIGH COURT JUDGE HIGHLY CRITICAL OF ARGUMENTATIVE AND LARGELY IRRELEVANT WITNESS STATEMENTS
Last week I wrote about the report on witness evidence working group of the business and property courts. That report commented that drafting witness statements (more accurately evidence in chief) was no longer part of a lawyer’s “stock in trade”. …
WITNESS STATEMENTS: EDITED HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT OF THE WITNESS EVIDENCE WORKING GROUP: THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
This report of the Witness Evidence Working Group was produced at the end of last year. It highlights some major issues in relation to the use of witness statements, and the role and experience of those preparing them. It has…
INACCURATE TRANSCRIPTS WERE NOT AUTHENTIC: HIGH COURT DECISION
One reliable element in most litigation is a transcript of a judgment. In Ghassemian v de Beaumont & Anor [2020] EWHC 1642 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss had cause to question the accuracy of a transcript of his own judgment. “The…
COUNSEL’S ADVICE IS NOT EVIDENCE: REALLY, ITS NOT.
There is an interesting consideration of the role of counsel’s advice in the judgment of HHJ Vincent in AZ v BZ (financial remedies appeal) [2020] EWFC 28. In a financial remedies hearing, a judge was wrong to firstly admit, and…
THE EXPERT THAT DOESN’T GIVE HIS SOURCES (EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA): A PRACTICE DEPRECATED BY THE COURT.
In Engie Fabricom (UK) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 1626 (TCC) Mrs Justice O’Farrell commented on the practice of one of the experts in the case. Failure to follow the basic guidance given in the…
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…
THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH: CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEFS’ 7th (OR 29th?) BIRTHDAY: FACTS, FIGURES AND HOW IT ALL BEGAN
This week sees the seventh anniversary of Civil Litigation Brief as a blog. That, it appears, is relatively young as a blog, the housing law blog Nearly Legal recently celebrated its 14th anniversary and is well into its truculent teenage…
SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE, ALLEGATIONS OF MALINGERING AND INDEMNITY COSTS (AGAINST THE DEFENDANT)
I had no sooner finished a webinar about surveillance evidence this afternoon when I received an email and a copy of a case from solicitor Steve Evans.* The judgment of HHJ Yelton (sitting in the High Court) in Kilbey -v-…
COVID REPEATS 43: FAREPAK: “A DOCUMENT CREATED IN THE LANGUAGE OF LAWYERS BY THE LAWYERS”
Today we are revisiting the observations of Mr Justice Smith in the Farepak case farepak-judges-statement. It presents an object lesson in the need for careful preparation of witness evidence and identifying precisely what “evidence” a witness can give. “The…
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…
![JUST BECAUSE YOU GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU AN EXPERT: "ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS AND NAKED USURPATION[S] OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN"](https://i0.wp.com/www.civillitigationbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/calculator_count_statistics_1277492.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
JUST BECAUSE YOU GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT DOESN’T MAKE YOU AN EXPERT: “ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS AND NAKED USURPATION[S] OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN”
Last week the “Covid Repeats” posts on this blog highlighted a few (and just a few) of the cases where judges had been critical of the role of experts, or experts involved in cases has been problematic. That this remains…
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION GOES UP IN SMOKE…
Possibly the most difficult position you could put yourself in in litigation is for the court to make an order, do something the court did not allow, not get permission in advance, and then seek relief from sanctions thereafter. …
EVALUATING EVIDENCE ON APPEAL: THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT READILY DISPLACE THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE
I am grateful to Christopher Kardahji from Irwin Mitchell solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Lenord -v- First Manchester Limited [2020] EWHC 982 (QB). The judgment contains a detailed analysis of the…
WHEN A DEFENDANT FILED A COSTS BUDGET LATE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: “THE DEFAULTING PARTY HAS ONLY ITSELF OR ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO BLAME”
The judgment of HHJ Simon Barker QC in Heathfield International LLC v Axiom Stone (London) Ltd [2020] EWHC 1075 (Ch) is another example of a party coming to grief because of the failure to file a costs budget timeously. That…
COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT: THE STANDARD OF PROOF FOR DISHONESTY: ALSO DELAY OF 22 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT UNACCEPTABLE
In Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 408 the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial because of doubts in relation to the trial judge’s findings of fact. The judge had applied too high…
EXPERT WITNESSES: HANDING THE JUDGE AN UNSORTED MEDLEY OF DOCUMENTS MAY NOT GO DOWN TOO WELL
There was one aspect of the evidence mentioned in the judgment Morrow v Shrewsbury Rugby Union Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 379 (QB) Mrs Justice Farbey that was somewhat unusual. An expert handed the judge a “file of documents” to…
“GOOD DAYS AND BAD DAYS”: FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AT TRIAL – AN EXAMPLE
Last month I reviewed the judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Grant -v- Newport City Council [2018] EWHC 3813. In that case the judge allowed the defendant to adduce surveillance evidence, even though it was adduced late. I am grateful to Mark…
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…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 74: HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND SECTION 4 OF THE CIVIL EVIDENCE ACT 1995
The judgment of Deputy Master Linwood in Barnaby & Anor v Johnson (aka Smith) [2019] EWHC 3344 (Ch) provides a reminder of the terms of Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and an example of its application. …