“MY SOLICITOR WROTE THAT STATEMENT”: A FAMILIAR TALE: HAVING A PLAN TO PROTECT YOURSELF
The previous post dealt with a case where the claimant’s witness statement was found to be “largely fictional”. This coincided with a number of posts on Twitter with various lawyers and judges (duly anonymous) commented on the situations in which…
CASES MUST BE DECIDED ON EVIDENCE RATHER THAN PREJUDICE: JUDGE TELLING COUNSEL TO “GET A LIFE” MAY INDICATE PREJUDGMENT
In Vassilliou -v- The NFU Mutual Insurance Society Limited (Central London County Court 9th July 2018) Mr Recorder Cohen Q.C. allowed an appeal by a claimant. He held that issues of mitigation of loss can only relate to matters that…
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…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE DANGERS OF JUMPING THE GUN: JUDGES DO NOT PASSIVELY ACQUIRE AN ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF BUNDLES BY OSMOSIS
There is so much for litigators to learn from the judgment of Master Thornett in Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 3276 (QB) that I considered a series of blog posts. There are a number of central…
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…
CIVIL EVIDENCE AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON : THE DANGERS OF A JUDGE ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS
In Global Corporate Ltd v Hale [2018] EWCA Civ 2618 the Court of Appeal emphasised the dangers of a judge asking leading questions of a witness. It is a case that highlights the difficulties of trials involving litigants in person. THE…
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…
A HAPPY READER WRITES: WHEN BLOG POSTS ARE READ A ZILLION TIMES…
a As a blogger feedback comes in many forms. Yesterday I had an email from a litigant in person. The method described may well become more prevalent. THE EMAIL “Mr Exall, I wrote to you this time last year with…
PROVING THINGS 133: FALLING OFF A BED AND THE PIECES OF THE JIGSAW
The case of Busby v Berkshire Bed Company Ltd [2018] EWHC 2976 (QB) was one of those cases that centred on credible evidence. It is an example of where witnesses can be totally honest but mistaken in their recollection. The judge…
GUIDANCE TO EXPERTS, STRAIGHT FROM THE BENCH: ONLY PUT YOUR HAT WHERE YOU CAN REACH IT: AVOID EXPERT-WITNESS-ITIS
There are several series on this blog which features judges giving advice to advocates. In his keynote address to the Bond Solon Experts conference Lord Justice McFarlane gives advice to experts. As ever the aim of this post is to…
PROVING THINGS 132: BUNDLES, BURDENS OF PROOF AND GO-KARTS: CLAIMANT MANAGES TO CROSS THE WINNING LINE ON APPEAL
The judgment in Cowley Property Investment Ltd v Oxford Karting Ltd [2018] EWHC 2824 (Ch) contains a consideration of the rule that documents in an agreed trial bundle are admissible. It is a case all about proving things without calling evidence….
WHEN WITNESSES DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SAYING: WHY THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IS IMPORTANT
There is a short passage in the judgment in GPP Big Field LLP & Anor v Solar EPC Solutions SL [2018] EWHC 2866 (Comm) that shows (not for the first time this year) that those responsible for drafting witness statements often…
RESPONDENTS ALLOWED TO COMMENT AT HEARING : NEVERTHELESS SURVIVES A COSTS ORDER ON APPEAL
In Bhogal & Anor v Knight [2018] EWHC 2952 (Ch) the appellants failed in their appeal following an order that the respondent pay the costs of their initial application. The procedure described in the judgment is instructive. It was yet another…
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…
TRYING TO SNEAK EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO A WITNESS STATEMENT: PEOPLE MIGHT NOTICE: DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO EXHIBIT EXPERTS STRUCK OUT
There have been numerous cases in which parties have attempted to give expert evidence in witness statements. Another example can be seen in the decision in New Media Distribution Company Sezc Ltd v Kagalovsky [2018] EWHC 2742 (Ch). An attempt to…
EXPERT EVIDENCE – SHOULD YOU FRET ABOUT WHAT THE EXPERT HAS QUOTED? I DON’T LIKE MONDAYS BUT YOU CAN KEEP THE GUITAR PARTS
In Moylett v Geldof & Anor [2018] EWHC 893 (Ch) Mr Justice Carr considered some aspects relating to the admissibility of expert evidence. Statements of others included in a report are not expert evidence, however the inclusion of those statements did…
WHO SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH? THIS COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: TICKING A BOX IS NOT SUFFICIENT
I am looking again at the judgment in Kassam -v- Gill (13th August 2018, County Court at Birmingham available on Lawtel). Here we look at the crucial question of who signed the statement of truth. A difficult concept when a claim form…
PROVING THINGS 123: THE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMANT WHO COULD NOT SAY WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD BEEN INJURED
We looked at the case of Kavak v FMC – HHJ Pearce Manchester CC 24.04.18) in an earlier post, primarily in the context of re-allocation. However that case provides a clear illustration of a failure to prove a basic element of…
CHANGING TRACK AFTER TRIAL: CLAIM RE-ALLOCATED FROM FAST TRACK TO SMALL CLAIMS TRACK: CLAIMANT CONFINED TO SMALL CLAIM TRACK COSTS
I am grateful to Michael Cordeux from Plexus Law for sending me a copy of the decision of His Honour JudgePearce, sitting in the Manchester County Court, on the 9th April 2018. It is an example of how a case…
CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED
In Ryan v Resende [2018] EWHC 2145 (QB) Mr Justice Goose allowed the claimant’s appeal and granted permission for it to rely on a care expert. The judgment shows the importance of having evidence to hand to counter an argument that…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 3: THE EVIDENCE GATHERING PROCESS, STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRES AND THE USE OF LEADING QUESTIONS
This is the third in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Here we look at the evidence gathering process, in particular the use of questionnaires and the…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 1: PLEADINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE
The judgment in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB) came after a trial that commenced in May 2016 and lasted until June 2018. It contained a whole range of issues in relation to procedure…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 10: CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DONE PROMPTLY: COURT REFUSES LATE APPLICATION – DENTON CRITERIA APPLIED
There is a short addendum to the judgment of Lionel Persey QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Lloyd v Kruger [2018] EWHC 2011 (Comm). This deals with a very late application by the claimant to assert that documents were…
PROVING THINGS 121: FAILING TO PROVE LOSS OF EARNINGS, AND THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHERE FUTURE TREATMENT IS UNCERTAIN
Yesterday I looked at Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB) and the comments from the judge in relation to the joint statement of experts. The case also contains interesting observations in relation to proving damages. These are observations on matters…
EXPERTS, LAWYERS & THE JOINT REPORT (II): NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM LAWYERS PLEASE
This is the second case today looking at observations made in cases this week in relation to the joint meeting of experts. In BDW Trading Ltd v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1915 (TCC) HH Honour Judge Stephen Davies stated…
PROVING THINGS 114: A WITNESS OF FACT CANNOT GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANY LOSS
There are several elements worth looking at in the judgment in Wessely & Anor (Liquidators of Laishley Ltd) v White [2018] EWHC 1499 (Ch). However it is a prime example of a simple failure to prove things. If the applicants had…
PROVING THINGS 98: AN EASY AND OBVIOUS ROUTE TO REFUTE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE (WHICH WAS NOT DONE)
I am returning to the decision of Mr Justice Martin Spencer today in Lesforis v Tolias [2018] EWHC 1225 (QB). This time in the context of proving, or refuting, allegations of negligence. There was a simple route by which the defendant could have…
A JUDGMENT ADJOURNING A TRIAL: THE CLAIMANT DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE ACTION WAS NECESSARY; THE TRIAL BUNDLE DID NOT HAVE THE KEY DOCUMENT (AND MORE)
The short judgment of Mr Justice Holman in Matthews v Matthews & Anor [2018] EWHC 906 (Fam) looks like a family case. However it is an inheritance claim and contains some surprising revelations. KEY POINTS If you are asking a judge…
PROVING THINGS 90 : THE TATTOO ARTIST & THE CACTUS SHOP: PRICK ME ONE MORE TIME
The opportunities for puns arising out of the issues in Martinez (t/a Prick) & Anor v Prick Me Baby One More Time Ltd (t/a Prick) & Anor [2018] EWHC 776 (IPEC) are obvious (and indeed are mentioned in the judgment itself)….
SPEAKING TO YOUR WITNESS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EVIDENCE: STRIKE OUT DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
An earlier post reported on the decision of the Employment Tribunal in Chidzoy -v- BBC (available here). It illustrates the dangers of a witness talking to anyone in the course of their evidence. This case emphasises the importance of witnesses not…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 1: THE HUMBLE APPLICATION: WORDING AND TIMING
Last year I was giving an in-house talk at a very prominent firm of litigation solicitors. The litigation partner present (a person of immense experience) made the point that the firm were continually having talks and education on esoteric and…
CIVIL LITIGATORS AND THE SECRET BARRISTER 4: WHY WE CAN’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT (OR OURSELVES)
SB’s book sales plough on. It has reached the top 10 in the best seller list. The Criminal Bar Association have set up a fund to send a copy of the book to every MP. You can donate here. …
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS : A CLASSIC CASE FOR RELIEF TO BE GRANTED: NOTICE TO PROVE SERVED LATE
In Tuke v JD Classics Ltd [2018] EWHC 531 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles granted a claimant relief from sanctions when a “Notice to Prove” was served late. It is a reminder, amongst other things, of the need to serve a…
HOW A COURT ASSESSES WITNESS EVIDENCE: A SHORT PRIMER
We have already looked at the decision of the upper tribunal in Conegate Ltd v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX – purchase of shares) [2018] UKFTT 82 (TC) in relation to issues of privilege and without prejudice discussions. The same judgment…
PROVING THINGS: IF YOU LIKE THE BLOGS – THEN WATCH THE MOVIE…
The Webinar I did last week called “Proving things: if you don’t prove it, then you don’t get it” is now available for purchase online. TOPICS COVERED Topics covered include: “If you don’t prove it you don’t get it” Witness…
DENTON APPLIED WHEN THE OTHER SIDE DOES NOT SHOW UP FOR TRIAL
In Foreman v Williams [2017] EWHC 3370 (QB) Peter Marquand (sitting as a High Court judge) considered the application of the Denton principles in an unusual context. The claimant required relief from sanctions because he was unable to serve documents on…
HAS THE WITNESS FOR THE OTHER SIDE WRITTEN A BOOK? THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION: RESEARCHING AN EXPERT BEFORE THEY GIVE EVIDENCE
I have lost track of the number of interlocutory judgments there have been in the case of Kimathi & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The latest judgment being at [2017] EWHC 3054 (QB). This judgment deals with the issue…
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS DEPLOYED IN COURT: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION
The judgment of Master McCloud in Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution – access to courts – open justice) [2017] EWHC 3154 (QB) considers the issue of whether the public should have access to documents disclosed during the course…
HOT TUBBING OF EXPERTS: NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION
The 93rd Update on Practice Direction Amendments also introduced a change in the rules as to concurrent evidence from experts. This gives the trial judge a considerable degree of flexibility about the way in which expert evidence is heard. These rules came…
WITNESSES WHO ARGUE THE CASE AND EXPERTS WHO ACT AS ADVOCATES: THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP …
In British Telecommunications Plc v Office Of Communications [2017] CAT 25 the Competition Appeal Tribunal commented on two of the central evidential issues of much commercial litigation: witnesses who give much commentary and “argue” the case; experts who act as advocates. …
FABRICATING DOCUMENTS AND MISLEADING THE JUDGES: WHEN KEY DOCUMENTS ARE HIDDEN BEHIND THE CURTAINS IN COURT
The judgment of Mr Justice Henry Carr in Ghassemian v Chatsworth Court Freehold Company Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 872 (Ch) illustrates the lengths to which some litigants will go. The judge found that the applicant had forged documents, backdated applications…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY, VERY BAD SINGING AND A MOVIE: ALL HUMAN LIFE IS HERE: (SOMETHING FOR LAWYERS TOO…)
The decision in Martin & Anor v Kogan & Ors [2017] EWHC 2927 (IPEC) centred on witness credibility. Not so much honesty but accuracy of recollection. It illustrates the issue of how the judge goes about assessing evidence when witnesses…
Proving things 74: WHEN YOUR EVIDENCE IS FAR FROM FABULOUS AND COMES WITH A “HEALTH WARNING”: APPLICANT’S CASE PUT BACK IN THE BOX
There is an interesting discussion of the evidence in the Upper Tribunal decision in Fabulous Collections Ltd v Smith (Valuation Officer), Re: 3 Poplar Arcade [2017] UKUT 452. A central part of an applicant’s case essentially disappeared on the morning of…
FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: A JUDGE MAKES THE FINDINGS FIRST AND CONSIDERS THE EXPERT EVIDENCE NEXT
In Graham & Anor v Campfield & Anor [2017] EWHC 2746 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss made some important observations about findings of fact and expert evidence. It shows the importance of primary findings of fact and the limitations of expert evidence. …
WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL ME THAT BEFORE WE WENT INTO COURT? THINGS LAWYERS LEARN HALF WAY THROUGH A TRIAL
The post earlier today on a case where key facts came to light on the third day of a trial led me to ask lawyers if they had similar experiences. That sudden, and unexpected, “surprise” bit of evidence which no-one…
WIKIPEDIA IN THE COURTS (SO FAR): MUSIC, BREWERIES, CANALS, DOG WHISTLE POLITICS AND GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER: SOME QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED
I have had to apologise in the past for taking small parts of a judicial judgment and scrutinising them closely in relation to matters of procedure or evidence. This apology is particularly apposite in relation to the judgment in Oldham Metropolitan…
BUNDLES: A QUICK REMINDER: SEDLEY’S LAW OF DOCUMENTS STILL APPLIES WITH SURPRISING REGULARITY
Over the past fortnight I have seen every one of Sedley’s Laws of Documents in action. This has prompted me to set out a quick reminder. Firstly of the Practice Direction and secondly of Sedley’s laws themselves. The “Laws” were…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: HANDWRITING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE : THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS IN SAFE HANDS
The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB) is one that has already made headlines. There is much of interest. However, that part of the judgment that deals with the analysis of…
ERRANT EVIDENCE AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT GOES MISSING: CLAIMANT’S EXPERTS FEEL THE HEAT
I am returning for the fifth time to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC). We have seen the judge’s views on the witnesses, the claimant’s disclosure and arguments that…
DOCUMENTS, AUTHENTICITY AND ADMISSIONS: A TIMELY REMINDER OF THE PROVISIONS OF CPR 32.19
I said in the previous post that there are several reasons litigators should read the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Jones -v- Oven [2017] EWHC 1647 (Ch). One of those reasons is that it contains…
You must be logged in to post a comment.