GIVING EVIDENCE CAN BE A GRIZZLY BUSINESS: HOW DO THE COURTS ASSESS WHOSE ACCOUNT IS CORRECT?
In Grizzly Business Ltd -v- Stena Drilling Ltd [2014] EWHC 1920 (Comm) a judge had to decide between two competing versions of what was said in a telephone call three years earlier in a case when $2.5 million was at…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE EXPERT’S ROLE: SEEING THE WOOD FOR THE TREES
A recent post dealt with the cross-examination of expert witnesses. It is interesting, in some cases, to look at how judged view expert evidence in practice. A good example arises in the judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Stagecoach Great…
AVOIDING UNDER SETTLEMENT 1: CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS (1)
The curious thing about writing about avoiding under settlement is that there is very little material on the subject, particularly in the U.K. There are now plenty of websites which offer to sue your previous lawyer if you are not…
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: MORE ABOUT CREDIBILITY
A recent post dealt with issues relating to credibility in witness statements. Continuing with that theme it helps to look at the discussion of how witness recollection should be treated in Gestmin -v- Credit Suisse [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) and…
THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE THEIR OPINIONS: IT HINDERS RATHER THAN HELPS YOUR CASE
A post yesterday reviewed the comments on witness statements made in the Jackson Report. One major criticism was that witness statements were being used to advance matters of opinion and not fact. A case decided yesterday exemplifies that problem. It…
WHAT THE JACKSON REPORT SAID 4: PROBLEMS WITH WITNESS STATEMENTS: LENGTHY, IRRELEVANT AND RAMBLING
The Jackson Reforms made only minor amendments to the rules relating to witness statements. However the Reports, particularly the Preliminary Report, disclosed a real issue in relation to over-extensive report. THE “TWO NATIONS” OF WITNESS STATEMENTS The preliminary report demonstrated…
MITCHELL CASE IN THE NEWS AGAIN: THIS TIME ON NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE
Despite the costs order upheld by the Court of Appeal the Mitchell libel action continues. There is a report of a decision today by Tugendhat in relation to an application for disclosure [2014] EWHC 879 (QB). It concerned an…
WAIVING PRIVILEGE BY MENTIONING LEGAL ADVICE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: A CASE IN POINT
A case reported on Lawtel this morning demonstrates the dangers of referring to legal advice in witness statements. The decision of Males J in Mid-East Sales -v- Engineering & Trading Co [2014] EWHC 892 (Comm) was made on 14/03/2004. THE…
EXCLUDING WITNESSES FROM COURT IN CIVIL AND FAMILY HEARINGS: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH: LUCKWELL V LIMATA CONSIDERED
In civil proceedings witnesses are commonly present throughout the entire action. On occasions a request is made that witnesses be excluded. There is little authority for the proposition that a court can exclude witnesses or guidance as to how the…
DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS : THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK WILL DETERMINE THE ANSWERS YOU GET: EIGHT CRUCIAL POINTS ON EVIDENCE
Earlier posts on witness statements have dealt with the manner of drafting and presentation. However one overlooked aspect is the way that witnesses are questioned. The questions asked, and the way questions are asked, will determine the evidence that goes…
DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE GENIUS OF JOHN MUNKMAN
The skill and effort involved in drafting a proper and appropriate witness statement are often overlooked. Mistakes are often made. Witness statements are either to cursory and brief; too opinionated and argumentative or over-elaborate and lacking credibility. Curiously enough most…
You must be logged in to post a comment.