PROVING THINGS 129: IMPATIENT PATIENT DID NOT BREAK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION: SUPREME COURT DECISION TODAY
The Supreme Court decision today in Darnley -v- Croydon Health Service NHS Trust [2018]UKSC 50 marks a development in the law of negligence, and also in relation to proving causation. “Far from constituting a break in the chain of causation,…
PROVING THINGS 128: CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE NOT FULL, CLEAR, FRANK OR UNEQUIVOCAL IN RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS
In Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors [2018] EWHC 2503 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare was critical of the quality of the evidence that the respondent adduced in response to an application for security for costs. THE CASE The defendants sought an…
PROVING THINGS 127: WRITTEN CONTRACT – WHAT WRITTEN CONTRACT? APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION FAILS WHEN CLAIMANT CANNOT PROVE A CONTRACT WAS EVER SIGNED
The judgment of HHJ Neil Bidder QC in Tenon FM Ltd v Cawley & Ors [2018] EWHC 1972 (QB) shows a failure by a claimant to prove the most basic of issues. The claimant could not establish that a defendant had…
PROVING THINGS 126: FAILURE TO PROVE DISHONESTY
The judgment in Autogas (Europe) Ltd v Ochocki & Ors [2018] EWHC 2345 (Ch) highlights the difficulties for a claimant who has to prove fraud as an essential element of their claim. The judgment also emphasises the needs to plead allegations…
PROVING THINGS 125: THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING YOUR OWN EXPERT IN THE LOOP: ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF READING AN EXPERT’S NOTES
In Swift v Carpenter [2018] EWHC 2060 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert gave a lengthy judgment in a high value personal injury case. One interesting aspect of that case is the problems caused by the defendant’s expert evidence on care. An additional…
PROVING THINGS 124: “PUT BLUNTLY: THAT EVIDENCE IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE”: DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE ON AN INJUNCTION APPLICATION
In Jahangiri v St. George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 2278 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklin observed that witness evidence put forward by the defendant was far from adequate. “The Court is best assisted when the evidence of someone who…
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…
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…
PROVING THINGS 120: PROVING DAMAGES: THE DANGERS OF NOT HAVING A CREDIBLE “FALL BACK” POSITION
In Moore & Anor v National Westminster Bank [2018] EWHC 1805 (TCC) Mr Justice Birss dismissed an appeal by the defendant against an award of £115,000 in damages. It is a case about the appropriate assessment of damages when the defendant…
PROVING THINGS 119: WITNESSES & EXPERTS : “IN A CASE OF FAIRLY REMARKABLE REPORTS, THIS WAS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY”
If you want to see an example of problematic witness statements, and even more problematic expert witnesses, then read the judgment of Mrs Justice Jefford DBE in Castle Trustee Ltd & Ors v Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd [2018] EWHC 1602 (TCC). …
PROVING THINGS 118: IT SEEMS THAT EVEN THE LORD CHANCELLOR DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO PROVE THINGS: “THAT FINAL SENTENCE WAS BOTH INACCURATE AND MISLEADING”
A body charged with the delivery of legal services to some of the most vulnerable people in our society (and which, incidentally, is in charge of the justice system) should be making decisions that are logical and justifiable – you…
PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS “MALICIOUS”: PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE
In the judgment in Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWCA Civ 1587 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that a police force was not liable for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office because…
PROVING THINGS 116: HONEST WITNESSES CAN BE WRONG: “INSIGNIFICANT EVENT” BECOMES “MAGNIFIED IN THE CLAIMANT’S MIND”
The judgment in Pauline Carter v Kingswood Learning And Leisure Group Limited [2018] EWHC 1616 (QB) shows a scenario where a claimant can be totally honest and credible, but still be wrong. “I am sure she is an honest person, but…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 10: THE PROVING THING SERIES: SIZE DON’T SEEM TO MATTER…
This is the last in the series looking back at key series of posts on this blog over the past five years. Keen observers will note that most series last for about 10 posts. When the “Proving Thing” series started…
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 113: POOR EVIDENCE COLLECTION: EXPERTS STRAYING WELL BEYOND THEIR REMIT AND WHO ARE “NOT ENTITLED TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION”
Family cases, however, often come up with interesting observations in relation to the judge’s role as a fact finder. Similarly much can be gained by looking at the judge’s observations on experts. We see a critique of the process of…
PROVING THINGS 112: ITS NO USE JUST WAVING ACCOUNTANT’S REPORTS AROUND
In Berkshire Homes (Northern) Ltd v Newbury Venture Capital Ltd [2018] EWHC 938 (Ch) the respondent relied on accountant’s reports in an attempt to prove its case. The case shows that it is insufficient just to produce accounts. Evidence has to…
PROVING THINGS 111: CAUSATION IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES WHERE THERE IS A FAILURE TO WARN: BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS ON THE CLAIMANT
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1307 deals with a number of matters. Here I want to look at the question of proving causation in a case where the…
PROVING THINGS 110: ASSESSING DAMAGES: “BEGIN WITH FIRST PRINCIPLES”: PROVING AND ASSESSING LOSS IN A CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
In Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey (a firm) [2018] EWCA Civ 1299 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that the claimant had not established causation for damages in a professional negligence action. When assessing damages the court should begin…
PROVING THINGS 109: WHEN A DEFENDANT IS ABLE TO OBTAIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL SEE THE REPORT HERE In Hewes v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust & Ors [2018] EWHC 1345 (QB) Master Cook allowed a defendant’s application for summary judgment. It is a classic case of a…
PROVING THINGS 108: PROVING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT EXPERT EVIDENCE
In Avondale Exhibitions Ltd v Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Ltd [2018] EWHC 1311 (QB) His Honour Judge Keyser QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the issue of whether it was necessary to adduce expert evidence to…
PROVING THINGS 106: YOU DIDN’T COMPLY WITH YOUR OWN RISK ASSESSMENT AND YOU WANT TO APPEAL: COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE CAUSATION
In CC v Leeds City Council [2018] EWHC 1312 (QB) Mr Justice Turner reiterates the importance of the risk assessment in personal injury litigation. On appeal the judge rejected an argument that a claimant had failed to prove causation. The defendant’s…
PROVING THINGS 105: BURDEN ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE A DEFECT: THE DIFFICULT TASK OF APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT ON APPEAL
I am grateful to Matthew Snarr for sending me a copy of the judgment, given yesterday, in Bond -v- Tom Croft (Bolton) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1290 QB. It contains an important observation about the burden of proof in establishing that…
PROVING THINGS 104: “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE ME AS TO HOW THE PLAINTIFF WOULD PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A GHOST”
I don’t normally travel too far from England and Wales in the Proving Things series. However a kind reader sent me an article on the Canadian decision in Ont. Inc. v K-W Labour Association et al, 2013 ONSC 5401 (CanLII). It…
PROVING THINGS 103: CAUSATION WHEN THE CLAIMANT TRIED TO ESCAPE FROM A BALCONY: A TALE OF TWO JUDGMENTS
There is an interesting consideration of causation in the Court of Appeal judgment today in Clay v TUI UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1177. This has the flavour of a case that may go further. There is an interesting dissenting judgment…
PROVING THINGS 1O2: FAILING TO PROVE CHANCE OF RECONCILIATION
A claimant in a fatal accident claim does not have to prove an entitlement to a dependency claim on the balance of probabilities. The court can, in appropriate cases, look at the case on the basis of loss of chance,…
PROVING THINGS 101:A RECAP – THE FIRST 100 POSTS : WHEN BASIC MATTERS ARE JUST NOT PROVEN
When I started this series I never anticipated it would run to 100 posts. Up until last week I had planned to stop after 100. However the Leeds Legal Walk served, inadvertently, as a feedback session for this blog. Since…
PROVING THINGS 100: IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE ANYTHING WHEN EVERYONE IS LYING: “A FESTIVAL OF MENDACITY”
The judgment of Mr Justice Turner today in Rashid v Munir & Ors [2018] EWHC 1258 (QB) illustrates the difficult task of the trial judge when all of the witnesses are strangers to the truth. “Attempting to establish the common but…
PROVING THINGS 99: THE ROLE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS: TRIAL JUDGE COULD PREFER VIEWS OF OTHER EXPERT
The opinion of a single joint expert is not binding on the court. This is clear from the judgment of Mr Justice Turner today in HJ v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1227 (QB) “The opinion of a single…
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…
PROVING THINGS 97: AN APPROACH THAT WAS UTTERLY FLAWED AND HOPELESSLY CARELESS: WHEN SOLICITORS LETTERS BECAME PART OF A PROCESS OF UNLAWFUL HARRASSMENT
In Worthington & Anor v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1125 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a housing association had unlawfully harassed its own tenants. A major part of the problem came from the association’s highly…
PROVING THINGS 96: A WITNESS MAY NOT BE TELLING LIES – BUT THEIR MEMORY MAY WELL BE BIASED: ASSESSING EVIDENCE WHEN FRIENDS FALL OUT
One of the hardest tasks of litigation is trying to assess the credibility of a witness, particularly your own witness. Litigants can (and often do) have strong views about the case and what they said and did. The fact that…
PROVING THINGS 95: OH… WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES…
Crown Office Chambers have a short post on their website that deals with the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018. The post provides a link to the judgment itself. The judgment is another example of a…
PROVING THINGS 93: PROVING A WILL: THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW
I cannot remember the last time I read a case where the Court of Appeal heard evidence from witnesses (who had not been heard below) and made a request that it have sight of original documents. This is what happened…
PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY “WISHFUL THINKING”: £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)
The judgment of John Martin QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in London College of Business Ltd v Tareem Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 437 (Ch) is a prime example of a failure to prove damages. The claim was…
PROVING THINGS 91: HOW TELLING IS A “FIST BUMP”? A JUDGE NOTICES THINGS THAT GO ON OUTSIDE THE WITNESS BOX
There are a number of issues that arise in the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in the judgment today Clark v Farley & Anor [2018] EWHC 1007 (QB). It shows how how a defendant failed to prove its case and the…
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)….
WHEN THE LIMITATION ACT IS NOT YOUR BEST FRIEND: “SHEER INCOMPETENCE” DOES NOT PERSUADE A COURT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION
CPR 17.(4) is always one of the most “challenging” sections of the Limitation Act in practice. Amending the name of a party after the expiry of the limitation period is not always easy. The judgment in Best Friends Group & Anor…
PROVING THINGS 89: AN APPROACH THAT IS JUST DANGEROUS: ABDICATION OF THE LAWYER’S ROLE TO AN EXPERT
This is the third post today on Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB). The case demonstrates an approach to a claim for damages that is simply dangerous: asserting a claim for damages where there is no adequate evidence…
PROVING THINGS 88: MATTERS YOU HAVE TO PROVE IF YOU WANT AN INJUNCTION: THE IMPACT OF A SIX MONTH DELAY IN APPLYING
In Blade Motor Group Ltd v Reynolds & Reynolds Ltd [2018] EWHC 497 (Ch) an applicant for an injunction failed because it failed to prove the basic requirements. The fact that there was a six-month delay in applying for the injunction…
PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE
The decision of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in O’Neill -v- Bull & Bull* (Canterbury County Court 5th February 2018) is an almost classical example of the need to prove things. It also provides a warning to non-contentious lawyers on the…
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…
PROVING THINGS 85: AN INABILITY TO PROVE EVEN A SMALL SUM MEANS IT WILL NOT BE AWARDED
Many of the issues that have been looked at in the Proving Things series have been in relation to failures to prove substantial issues, or substantial sums. However the need to prove things is a universal requirement. I want to look…
PROVING THINGS 84: THE NEED TO PROVE A LOSS IS A PRESSING ONE: THAT OLD FASHIONED NEED TO PROVE DAMAGES: BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIM REJECTED
In Contact (Print And Packaging) Ltd v Travelers Insurance Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 83 (TCC) His Honour Judge Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered (and rejected) a claimant’s claim for damages for interruption to its business. It is…
2018: A NEW YEAR RESOLUTION FOR LITIGATORS: DON’T LEAVE MATTERS TO CHANCE – LEARN TO PROVE DAMAGES
For nearly two years this blog has documented issues (and often failures) when parties fail to prove things. In a surprising number of cases the failures are very basic. Proving things is the basic job of the litigator. However we…
PROVING THINGS 82: ITS NO GOOD FISHING – THE JUDGE WON’T BITE
It is surprising how often litigants get to trial and find that they have not got even the most basic evidence to prove their claim for damages. This happened to the claimant today in One Fish Company Ltd v Iceland Foods…
PROVING THINGS 81: PROVING MITIGATION OF LOSS – AGAIN: FAILURE TO FIND WORK WAS NOT A FAILURE TO MITIGATE
We have looked at issues relating to proving mitigation of loss before*. The legal burden in establishing a failure to mitigate loss lies with the party asserting a failure to mitigate. This was made clear in the judgment of Mrs…
PROVING THINGS 80: PROVING A SUBROGATED CLAIM: HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS NOT RECOVERED IN FULL
It is not uncommon for an insurer to seek to add a claim for outlay to a claim. This is particularly the case in relation to health insurers who seek to recover outlay in a claim for damages for personal…
PROVING THINGS 79: SOME THINGS JUST CAN’T BE A COINCIDENCE: A CAR CRASH OF A CASE
We have already looked today at the judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Yavuz & Ors[2017] EWHC 3088 (QB). However that judgment also contains a close and careful analysis of witness evidence. “I start by asking myself this question:…
You must be logged in to post a comment.