ADVICE TO A NEWLY QUALIFIED LITIGATOR (1): READ THIS CASE: BE WARY OF OPENING YOUR MOUTH TOO WIDE: TURN DOWN £1.5 MILLION AND GET £2.00 INSTEAD
A member of my family qualifies as a solicitor tomorrow and starts working in litigation. I have been pondering the best advice to give a newly qualified litigation solicitor. I intended a recap post of all those cases where litigants…
WHEN THE EXPERT WITNESS ACTUALLY SAYS THEY ARE AN “ADVOCATE”: WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
In LIC Telecommunications SARL & Anor v VTB Capital Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 1747 (Comm) Mrs Justice Moulder made some telling observations in relation to the expert evidence. THE CASE The application concerned whether certain proceedings were duly authorised….
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
SIXTH ANNIVERSARY OF CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF (AS A BLOG): A REVIEW OF ADVICE RECEIVED FROM ACROSS THE PROFESSION AND ACROSS THE WORLD
Today marks the 6th anniversary of the blog. Last year I did a detailed review of many of the series and key points over the previous years. To celebrate this year I am concentrating on the contributions made by others….
DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON “SPECIALIST” EVIDENCE AS TO LIFE EXPECTANCY: THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SUCH EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED AND CONSIDERED
In Dodds v Arif & Anor [2019] EWHC 1512 (QB) Master Davison refused the defendant’s application to rely on a specialist report in relation to the claimant’s life expectancy. The judgment also contains an important summary of the circumstances in…
FOOTBALL CLUB’S APPLICATION DOES NOT GET EXTRA TIME: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IN ORDER TO DISPUTE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS IS REFUSED
In UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd [2019] EWHC 1377 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt refused Sheffield United’s application for relief from sanctions so as to allow it to dispute the authenticity of documents during the course of a trial. “A…
PROVING THINGS 154: CLOSE CONNECTION IN TIME DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: EXPERTS STRAYING BEYOND THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE
In AXO v Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1454 (QB) Mrs Justice YIP considered the issue of causation in a clinical negligence case. Liability was admitted but the claimant failed to establish causation. THE CASE The claimant child was…
EXPERT WITNESSES: A CRISIS IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS – RECOMMENDED READING FOR ALL LITIGATORS
Matthew Scott’s “Barrister Blogger” blog is always an interesting read. His latest post Expert witnesses: a crisis in the criminal courts is essential reading for everyone involved in any type of litigation – and also for anyone who is an…
THE EXPERT WITNESS AND THE “HIRED GUN”: THE FACT THAT EXPERTS WERE VERY EXPENSIVE (AND FEES WERE FIXED IN RETROSPECT) DID NOT MAKE THEM UNRELIABLE
In O’Leary v Mercy University Hospital Cork Ltd [2019] IESC 48 the Supreme Court of Ireland made some telling observations on the role of the expert witness. Problems with experts are clearly not confined to one jurisdiction. OPENING OBSERVATIONS OF…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (4): THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT IS NOT A DEMIGOD
This blog looked recently at the case of O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 where the trial judge was critical of a jointly instructed expert’s attempt to find facts and state that something was “proven by overwhelming evidence”. That case contains…
THE APPOINTMENT OF A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT DOES NOT DISPLACE THE TRIAL JUDGE: EXPERTS SHOULD NOT “OVERREACH”
In O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 Mr Recorder Allen QC noted that a Single Joint Expert had gone beyond their remit in making findings of “fact”. The parties do not “abdicate” findings to a single joint experts and the…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (3): THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS: THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL GUIDANCE
We are returning to the Civil Justice Council “Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims”. This time the guidance on the instruction of experts. Remember this guidance is incorporated into the rules. It provides a essential information as…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (2): THE APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS: THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL GUIDANCE
The importance of the guidance given by the Civil Justice Council “Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims” is often overlooked. Not only are few people aware of exist of the guidance, fewer still are aware that it…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (1): GUIDANCE FROM THE LAWYERIST: “MUCH LIKE A COWBOY HERDING CATTLE”
Instructing expert witnesses is an important step in many actions. The advantages, and problems, caused by experts are well known and widely reported recently. This is one of the matters that crosses boundaries and gives rise to common problems across…
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 153: “YOU DO NOT WIN A CASE ON INCONSISTENCIES”: WHEN THE APPLICANTS “PURSUED A CONFUSED AND POORLY EVIDENCED CASE FOR LITTLE PURPOSE”
Most cases are lost not on issues of law but on issues of evidence. In Stewart & Ors v Watkin [2019] EWHC 1311 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber was particularly scathing of the quality of the applicants’ evidence. The judgment contains…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 47: THE FORMAL (AND MANDATORY) REQUIREMENTS OF A WITNESS STATEMENT: A CHECKLIST
Another short post caused by a discussion on Twitter about the number of witness statements that fail to comply with the most basic, mandatory, obligations in the Rules. The formal requirements of a witness statement are overlooked at the litigator’s…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 45: THE COURT CAN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL
We are looking at CPR 33.2(3) in relation to the reducing of witnesses or identifying issues prior to trial. THE RULE CPR 32.2(3) “(3) The court may give directions – (a) identifying or limiting the issues to which factual…
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…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 1: SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR
I have been at the APIL annual conference this week. Ostensibly to give a talk about expert evidence, but a blogger (indeed any practising lawyer) can never miss an opportunity to pick up ideas. I went to a “Fee earner…
APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE UPHILL BATTLE
In Staechelin & Ors v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 817 Lord Justice Lewison set out a “cut out and keep” guide for parties attempting to appeal findings of fact. A reminder of the uphill battle that appellants…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
This post arises out of a Twitter discussion. Someone was reporting that documents that had been disclosed during the course of ongoing litigation were being put copied onto social media. Is this allowed? THE RULES: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS This is…
AN “UNFORTUNATE CHANGE OF VIEW” BY AN EXPERT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPORT NOT BEING ROBUST AND CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR LITIGANTS
There have been several posts this month about experts, particularly valuation experts. There are short passages in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Bakrania & Anor v Shah & Ors [2019] EWHC 949 (Ch) which provide another example. THE…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE EARLIER THE BETTER (PARTICULARLY IF IT COSTS SOMEONE £7.5 MILLION)
The judgment of Mr Justice Snowden in Davey v Money & Anor [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch) will, no doubt, be read anxiously by all litigation funders. The judge held that the “Arkin cap” – a limit on the liability of…
RECORDINGS ARE DOCUMENTS: AN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE THAT WAS UNSATISFACTORY
In the judgment in Guest v Guest & Anor [2019] EWHC 869 (Ch) HHJ Russen (sitting as a High Court judge) commented on the unsatisfactory way in which recordings had been disclosed and produced to the court. It provides a…
PRELIMINARY ISSUES, WITNESS CREDIBILITY AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT: WHEN THE DEFENDANTS’ CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST…
The judgment of Mr Justice Lane in Antuzis & Ors v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 843 (QB) is interesting for many reasons. It concerns a claim for damages for exploited labour. It confirms that directors…
WHEN AN EXPERT RELIES ON MATTERS FROM THE INTERNET FOR MATTERS OUTSIDE THEIR EXPERTISE THEN YOUR CASE IS LIKELY TO FALL APART: THE CIDER HOUSE RULES
I am returning to the decision of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Devon Commercial Property Ltd v Barnett & Anor [2019] EWHC 700 (Ch). Here was are looking at the judge’s view of one of the experts….
GIVING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: JUST BECAUSE THE COURT HAS SAID YOU MAY – IT DOESN’T MEAN YOU WILL: HOW TO FAIL OF YOUR OWN ACCORD
Trials are always stressful events for the participants. They require careful preparation and are usually subject to close case management. Imagine the difficulties when you turn up at the trial and the judge says that the evidence you are relying…
YOU SPEND A FORTUNE ON EXPERT WITNESSES AND THEN FIND OUT THAT THEY ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE OR THEIR EVIDENCE ISN’T “EXPERT” AT ALL
There are parts of the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Devon Commercial Property Ltd v Barnett & Anor [2019] EWHC 700 (Ch) that merit close consideration by anyone involved in litigation that (they…
SOMETHING FOR THE WEEKEND: THE THIRD POST THIS WEEK ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: WHEN A SOLICITOR SIGNS A STATEMENT OF TRUTH ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT
I am returning, again, to the consequences of the Court of Appeal judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392, “the deliberate or reckless making of a false statement in a document verified by a statement of…
PROVING THINGS 146: NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO PROVE A LOSS, OR THAT THE DEFENDANT CAUSED ANY “LOSS” (THIS IS BECOMING A FAMILIAR STORY)
The number of people who are willing to commit to large scale, and expensive, litigation without having the basic evidence to prove their case on damages has proven to be a staple fare for this series. Another example is the…
THE POST OFFICE CASE (AGAIN): STRIKING OUT PASSAGES IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DEFENDANT WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS
For the third time today I am writing about the case of Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd [2018] EWHC 2698 (QB). However we are now looking at the earlier interlocutory application by the defendant to strike out large parts…
ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: WHEN POST OFFICE WITNESSES DO NOT DELIVER
The judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) is 1122 paragraphs long, following a two week long trial. There are aspects of this case I will look at again. However, it is interesting…
EXPERTS WHO CAN’T REPORT IN TIME: BETTER READ THIS: IF YOU CAN’T REPORT ON TIME PROBABLY BEST NOT TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS AT ALL…
In X and Y (Delay : Professional Conduct of Expert) [2019] EWFC B9 HH Clifford Bellamy (sitting as a Deputy Circuit Judge) made some observations in relation to the role of the expert, particularly when that expert cannot report timeously. The…
PROVING THINGS 145: WHEN EXPERTS ARE OF NO HELP AT ALL: IT IS THE FACTS THAT WON IT
I am giving a seminar on “Expert Witnesses and Liability” at the APIL Annual Conference in May. The judgment of HHJ McKenna (sitting as a High Court judge) in Al-Iqra & Ors v DSG Retail Ltd [2019] EWHC 429 (QB) gives…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 33: INVALUABLE GUIDANCE ON EXPERT EVIDENCE FROM THE ICCA
The Inns of Court College of Advocacy has prepared a very useful guide called “Guidance on the preparation, admission and examination of expert evidence”. It is free of charge and can be downloaded . This post is just a summary…
PROVING THINGS 142: CLAIMANT HAS TO PROVE SIZE OF HIGHWAY DEFECT: PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE “ALMOST COMPLETELY USELESS”
The judgment today in Walsh v The Council of the Borough of Kirklees [2019] EWHC 492 (QB) contains an important message for anyone involved in highway or “tripper” litigation: the claimant has to have evidence to prove the size of the…
WHEN EXPERTS REPORT THINGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN SAID: IT NEVER GOES WELL (WHEN THEY ARE FOUND OUT AT LEAST)
There was report in the Scottish newspaper The Herald earlier this week about disciplinary proceedings being brought against a doctor who had prepared a “misleading and inaccurate” medical report. In essence the expert reported, as facts, matters that the interviewee…
COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS
In A v B [2019] EWHC 275 (Comm) Mrs Justice Moulder refused the defendant’s application to declare inadmissible part of an expert report and a joint expert report. It was held that the principles in Rogers -v- Hoyle are of general…
STRIKING OUT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE PART 8 PROCEDURE: YOU CAN’T RELY ON MATTERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PLEADED: CLAIMANT’S CASE STRUCK OUT
I am grateful to barrister Toby Bishop for sending me a copy of the judgment of Master Marsh in Bhusate -v- Patel [2018] EWHC 2362 (Ch). Re Bhusate JUDGMENT copy Toby’s discussion of the substantive issues that arose in the claim can…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 29: EXPERTS AND FACTS: EXPERTS WHO VENTURE ONTO THE JUDGE’S TERRITORY DON’T USUALLY FARE TOO WELL
We have seen several cases recently where judges have objected, in clear terms, to an expert trying to find “facts”. That is properly a matter for the trial judge. It is worthwhile looking at the guidance and cases on this…
THE ABSENCE OF KEY DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE EASILY IGNORED: CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL: JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OVERTURNED ON APPEAL
In Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Ltd [2019] EWHC 149 (QB) Mr Justice Garnham overturned a judgment in favour of a defendant. The defendant’s failure to produce key documents, or give any explanation for their not being available, was a major…
HAVING A COPY OF WITNESS STATEMENTS AVAILABLE AT COURT: IT IS IN THE RULES
One other aspect of the decision in Prosser v British Airways Plc [2018] EW Misc B13 is worth noting. There was a rare reference to the requirements of CPR 32.13(1). Copy witness statements must be available at the trial for inspection. …
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 27: WAIVING LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT
One matter that all litigators must be aware of is that there is a risk of waiving privilege when mentioning legal advice in a witness statement. This can (and does) happen even when the statement states, expressly, that the maker…
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF POLICE REPORTS AS EVIDENCE: NO NEGLIGENCE WHEN DRIVER FEARED HE WAS TO BE ASSAULTED: A CASE TO POINT
In Mohmed v Barnes & Anor [2019] EWHC 87 (QB) Mr Justice Turner found that a driver had not been negligent when he drove into a pedestrian an attempt to escape an assault. The case is important in relation to an…
UNDERSTANDING LEGAL TERMINOLOGY: USEFUL GUIDANCE: IT DOESN’T ALL RES IPSA LOQUITUR YOU KNOW
The Radio 4 programme “Word of Mouth” had a programme last week on “legal language”: “demystifying the language of the court room”. This led one of the participants, barrister, author and blogger Lucy Reed to write a post “Why do…
ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: EX-FOOTBALL CLUB DIRECTORS’ EVIDENCE: ITS ALL A LOAD OF COBBLERS
This blog has looked at issues of witness credibility many times. There is a useful summary in the judgment of HHJ Simon Barker QC in Northampton Borough Council v Cardoza & Ors [2019] EWHC 26 (Ch) contains a review of the…
PRACTICE NOTE: BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN MANCHESTER: NO BUNDLE NO HEARING
Below I reproduce a Practice Note issued Mr Justice Barling, Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster. It deals with a transition process up to the point where (later this year) parties can file all documents electronically in the Manchester…
LITIGATORS KEEP A CAREFUL LOOK OUT: ITS YOUR DUTY TO MONITOR YOUR EXPERT’S CONDUCT (OTHERWISE ITS YOUR CLIENT THAT SUFFERS)
One specific aspect of the judgment in Mayr & Ors v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2018] EWHC 3669 (Comm) that needs emphasising is the duty the case places on a litigant’s lawyers to monitor the conduct of an expert and…
PROVING THINGS 138 : A WHOPPER OF AN OMISSION: McDONALD’S FAILS TO PROVE TRADEMARK RIGHTS TO “BIG MAC”: ADEQUATE EVIDENCE WAS NOT ON THE MENU
I am grateful to Yisroel for pointing out the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office in the “Big Mac” case. It is not my usual reading. However Yisroel points out that McDonald’s failed because of a basic failure…
You must be logged in to post a comment.