CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 78: NO DUTY ON AN INJURED CLAIMANT TO USE THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
This post is due to a tweet someone copied me in on this morning. The issue was, ostensibly, one of general damages in a personal injury case. An insurer was refusing to pay the costs of private treatment – stating…
COVID REPEATS 28: GOING BACK TO COLLEGE: THE NEED TO PROVE DAMAGES
Today we are going back to the general theme of a failure to prove damages. One harsh shock for many litigants occurs when they are asked to prove their damages at trial. We have looked several times when a litigant…
PROVING THINGS 176: RELYING ON MEMORY FROM EVENTS A LONG TIME BACK
I am grateful to David Platt QC for sending me a copy of the judgment given today of Geoffrey Tattersall QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Bannister -v- Freemans Public Limited Company [2020] EWHC 1256 (QB). …
COVID REPEATS 26: YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU HAVE SUFFERED DAMAGES: FOOTBALL CLUB PITCHES THEIR CASE TOO HIGHLY
The next few posts in this series are going to highlight those cases where parties simply failed to prove things at trial (and there are quite a few of these). Today we are looking at the Court of Appeal decision…
COVID REPEATS 24: THE CLAIMANT THAT CLAIMED £15 MILLION, TURNED DOWN £1.5 MILLION AND RECEIVED £2.00 (YES TWO WHOLE POUNDS)
The “Proving Things” series has been a part of this blog for several years now. Many of the posts highlight those cases (and there does not seem to be any end to them) where a party simply has no evidence…
PROVING THINGS 175: WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE IS ASKED TO CONSIDER THE QUALITY OF CUDDLY TOYS IN COURT: CPR 33.6 AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE
There is an interesting reminder of the provisions of CPR 33.6 in the judgment of HHJ Russen QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Dowman Imports Ltd v 2 Toobz Ltd (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 291 (Comm). The judge…
PROVING THINGS 174: ILLEGALITY, THE VAN DRIVER AND THE MOT CERTIFICATE: CLAIMANT STILL ENTITLED TO DAMAGES
I am grateful to Liam Davidson, from Winns Solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Freedman in Jack -v- Borys (Newcastle upon Tyne 20th December 2019). It relates to damages and illegality. Jack-v-Borys-2019 (1) “I think…
PROVING THINGS 173: FAILING TO PROVE ANY KIND OF PAST OR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS: A BLAMIRE AWARD IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR EVIDENCE
There is another aspect of the judgment of Mr Justice Chamberlain in BXB v Watch Tower And Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvannia & Anor [2020] EWHC 156 (QB) that merits attention. Th claimant sought damage for loss of earnings but these…
PROVING THINGS 172: SPECULATION BY THE DEFENDANT IS NOT EVIDENCE: A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE
The judgment of Mr Justice Turner in Morrison v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 91 (QB) is another illustration of a party asserting something but having no evidence to support it. This time it was a defendant whose…
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 AND COSTS: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP – NOVEMBER 2019
Here we have links to blogs and articles about civil procedure and costs from November 2019. COSTS Costs Barrister Blaming others Costs Barrister The undiscovered country Herbert Smith Freehills Court of Appeal confirms jurisdiction to award claimant interim payment on account of costs…
PROVING THINGS 169: WHEN THE DEFENDANT CALLS NO (LAY) EVIDENCE AND TRIES TO PROVE ITS CASE THROUGH THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESSES
There are a number of interesting aspects of the judgment of HHJ Coe in Esegbona v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (false imprisonment in hospital) [2019] EWHC 77 (QB). One of which is the defendant’s failure to call any…
PROVING THINGS 168: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION:STATEMENTS OF OPINION OR BELIEF CARRY NO WEIGHT
The Court of Appeal judgment today in Irani v Duchon [2019] EWCA Civ 1846 adds to the Proving Things series in relation to a failure to establish key matters at trial (it also gives me an opportunity to promote the…
PROVING THINGS 167: BUNDLES, EXPERTS, ABSENT WITNESS, UNPLEADED DEFENCES AND… SEWAGE: ALL MODERN LITIGATION IS HERE…
The judgment of HHJ Russen (QC) (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Kivells Ltd v Torridge District Council [2019] EWHC 2846 (TCC), contains a number of interesting scenarios in relation to civil evidence. Many of the common problems of…
PROVING THINGS 166: LYING IN COURT (& HOW THE JUDGE DECIDES WHO IS…)
A search term led someone to this blog today “how is it legal to get away with lying in court“. There is a whole host of material on the question of what is a “lie”, compared to a false or…
PROVING THINGS 165: CLAIMANT IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE PROVES NEGLIGENCE BUT FAILS TO ESTABLISH CAUSATION
In Bell v Bedford Hospital NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 2704 (QB) the claimant established clinical negligence but failed to prove causation. THE CASE The claimant suffered a major stroke that left her with significant permanent disabilities. She claimed that…
PROVING THINGS 163: PROVING MITIGATION OF LOSS: A CLAIMANT NEED NOT TAKE THE RISK OF STARTING UNCERTAIN LITIGATION AGAINST A THIRD PARTY
The need for a defendant to prove a failure to mitigate is something that has been covered before on this blog. In Natixis SA v Marex Financial & Ors [2019] EWHC 2549 (Comm) Mr Justice Bryan considered the legal principles. …
PROVING THINGS 162: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE THE COMMONS TOUCH
Constitutional lawyers will be writing about the Supreme Court decision today for decades to come. However I want to look at the more basic issue of the evidence that was placed before the courts. This was not a case…
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…
NOT GIVING SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF WHEN A SOLICITOR FILES A WITNESS STATEMENT: A PROBLEM BREAKING OUT ALL OVER
A post yesterday commented on the dangers of a solicitor (or indeed anyone) making a witness statement without giving the sources of their information and belief. An identical issue arose in the judgment of Deputy Master Linwood in Islestarr Holdings…