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…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE FORENSIC AND PROFESSIONAL DANGERS OF FAILING TO CONSIDER, AND GIVE EVIDENCE OF, THE SOURCE AND INFORMATION AND BELIEF
The previous post on the judgment in Baynton-Williams v Baynton-Williams [2019] EWHC 2179 (Ch) gives me a chance to return to a hobby horse – the need to give the source of information and belief when signing a witness statement. Here…
COURT OF APPEAL ORDER RETRIAL FOLLOWING JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REASONS: THE “BUILDING BLOCKS” OF FACT FINDING
Attempts to appeal findings of fact are extremely common, so common that I have stopped writing about them. There is also a common theme – the judge should not have found that, says the appellant: it was a finding open…
WHEN A SOLICITOR MAKES A WITNESS STATEMENT: STATE THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND DON’T GIVE “OPINION” EVIDENCE (IT REALLY DOESN’T GO DOWN WELL)
There are numerous examples on this blog of the difficulties that can occur when a solicitor makes a witness statement on behalf of their clients. The dangers are exemplified in the judgment of Master Marsh in Folgender Holdings Ltd &…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 57: YOU CAN’T SUBMIT THAT A WITNESS IS LYING UNLESS YOU HAVE PUT THAT CASE TO THEM
A short, but fundamental, point about making submissions at the close of a case. You cannot generally make submissions that a witness is lying unless that case has been put directly to that witness in cross-examination. “It is a fundamental…
THE GESTMIN PRINCIPLES IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: JUDGE DOUBTS WHETHER THEY CAN BE DIRECTLY APPLIED IN OTHER CONTEXTS
This blog has looked, many times, at the judicial assessment of evidence, particularly witness evidence. Often this is done by reference to the “Gestmin” criteria. In CXB -v-North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, [2019] EWHC 2053 (QB) HH Judge Gore…
DELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT DID NOT UNDERMINE THE JUDGE’S VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY
In Nuttal & Anor v Kerr & Anor [2019] EWHC 1977 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman rejected an argument that an excessive delay in giving judgment meant that the trial judge’s conclusions were innately unreliable. (The judgment also reviews the authorities…
ADVICE TO A NEWLY QUALIFIED LITIGATOR (2): BE LEGALLY STREETWISE : A LITIGATION CLIENT’S STRATEGY MAY POSSIBLY BE TO BLAME YOU
In the second in this series I am reminding everyone of a very useful post from Darlingtons solicitors . I said at the time it was first written that it deserved wider publication, and they kindly agreed I could reproduce it. …
MEMORY IS FLUID AND MALLEABLE: CENTRAL TO THE OUTCOME OF A TRIAL: GESTMIN CONSIDERED AND APPLIED
Another aspect of the judgment in Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 1719 (Ch) was the trial depended largely on the judge’s assessment of the evidence of the claimant. There was reference, unsurprisingly, to Gestmin. “Memory is fluid…
“CHARACTER EVIDENCE” IN CIVIL CASES: NOT ALLOWED (AND NOT MUCH USE ANYWAY)
In Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 1719 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee made some observations about evidence that was, in part, “character evidence”. THE CASE The claimant brought an action seeking damages after being advised to invest in…
THE ASSESSMENT OF WITNESS EVIDENCE: NOT A MINER MATTER: WITNESSES TEND TO REMEMBER WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE
Many judgments in contested trial contain a section where the judge gives an overview of the witness evidence, and their assessment of the credibility of those who gave evidence. The judgment of HHJ Eyre QC in The National Union of…
FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE TASK OF THE TRIAL JUDGE: A REASONED DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE ON THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL – NOT A SEARCH FOR “THE TRUTH”
There has been a spate of cases recently relating to appeals of findings of fact by a trial judge. There are major problems in such appeals, this is illustrated by the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Auliffe &…
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…
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…
“THIS WAS A DECISION TAKEN ON FACTS UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE”: MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE BY THE PAROLE BOARD: WHERE TWO CASES GET CONFUSED – HOW CAN WE SLEEP AT NIGHT?
It is unusual for this blog to look at decisions relating to Parole Board. However the careful gathering and analysis of evidence is central to every litigator’s role. A remarkable set of facts is outlined in the judgment of HHJ…
PROVING THINGS 152: CLAIMANT, BRINGING ACTION 50 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT, NOT QUITE THROWN TO THE WOLVES, BUT…
Davies v Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club (1986) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1252 (Ch) is an example of a case that rested on a very thin strand of , as it turned out extremely flimsy, evidence. “He is giving evidence about events…
WHY THE LYING LITIGANT SHOULD FRET: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONTEMPT: WHEN FACEBOOK FLATLY CONTRADICTS PART 18 REPLIES
In Zurich Insurance Plc v Romaine [2019] EWCA Civ 851 allowed an appeal by an insurer so that an application for committal for contempt of court can proceed. No substantive findings of fact have been made. The judgment shows that…
PROVING THINGS 149: A JUDGE CAN FIND DISHONESTY ON THE FACTS BEFORE THEM EVEN IF IT IS NOT PLEADED
We are staying with the decision of HHJ Melissa Clarke in ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1207 (IPEC). The claimant in that case had not pleaded fraud. The judge rejected the argument that the absence…
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…
WHEN THINGS GO WRONG FOR A DEFENDANT AT TRIAL: FOUR LESSONS FROM ONE CASE: WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO STATES THEY ARE “BIASED”…
In Hanbury & Anor v Hugh James Solicitors (a firm) [2019] EWHC 1074 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip found that a firm of solicitors had been negligent in its conduct of a fatal accident case. There are a number of lessons…
ASSESSING EVIDENCE 26 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: THE JUDICIAL APPROACH
In Taylor v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1043 (Ch) John Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered the question of assessing evidence of a brief incident, 26 years after the event, in a case…
DOES THE BASIC LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE RUN IN THE IMMIGRATION IMMIGRATION UPPER TRIBUNAL? A MATTER OF CONCERN TO US ALL
The Immigration Upper Tribunal does not appear to recognise some of the basic principles of civil evidence and appellate jurisdiction. Certainly this is the impression you get when reading the judgment of Lord Justice Davis in Palash v Secretary of…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36A: UNDERSTANDING “LITIGATION WISHFUL THINKING”
In assessing a case, and the evidence of both sides, litigators have to be aware of the process of “litigation wishful thinking”. Witnesses may be perfectly honest, but their memories as to what happened are influenced by what they wish would have…
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…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 35: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: MORE THAN MEMORY OR HONESTY
The question of witness credibility is often the central issue of most cases that get to trial. Surprisingly it is a matter that barely features in legal education. A knowledge of the factors that a judge will take into account…
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…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 34: “THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF” IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: 10 KEY POINTS
The maker of a witness statement must given the source of their information or belief. This obligation is often overlooked, or simply paid lip service to. However the careful following of this rule could prevent many of the common problems we…
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….
A WITNESS STATEMENT IS NOT A PLACE TO VENT YOUR SPLEEN: “DEPLORABLE PERSONAL ATTACKS” COULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON COSTS
There is a short closing remark in Mr Justice Mostyn’s judgment in Rothschild v Charmaine De Souza [2018] EWHC 1855 (Fam) that shows the danger of including personal attacks in witness statements. It is comforting to see how often this type…
JUDICIAL FOOTNOTES: I’LL GIVE YOU FOOTNOTES : WIFE TRYING TO RUN HUSBAND OVER WITH A VAN IS “ALWAYS A TELLTALE SIGN THAT A COUPLE ARE DRIFTING APART”
The previous post on the judgment of Canadian judge J.W. Quinn. J. led (believe it or not) to a heated – and I hope not entirely serious – discussion between some of hte lawyers on which was the best footnote…
“LEAVE AN UNTRUTHFUL MAN IN THE WITNESS BOX LONG ENOUGH AND HE WILL REVEAL HIMSELF TO THE WORLD”: WHEN A WITNESS FALLS..
I have lost count of the number of times people have asked me where they can find that “Canadian” case “you know, the one with the judge”. It is a case about witness credibility, in a blunt style. The Hearing Clinic…
WHEN YOU ASK SOMEONE TO SIGN A DOCUMENT WITH A STATEMENT OF TRUTH: OR SIGN ONE YOURSELF: BEST READ THIS IF YOU DON’T WANT TO GO TO JAIL
The judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392 goes much further than a warning to errant experts. It contains important observations that must be considered by the entire profession. Particularly those who draft statements, and those…
SHOULD AN ERRANT EXPERT GO TO JAIL? COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT SHOULD LEAD TO JAIL
In Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392 the Court of Appeal set out clear guidance for courts considering sentencing in cases relating to reckless contempt on the part of expert witnesses. A “reckless” statement made…
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…
GIVING NOTICE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACK AN EXPERT’S CREDIBILITY: ISSUES THAT ARISE WHEN EXPERT’S HAVE PRIOR DEALINGS WITH THE PARTIES
In Hamad M. Aldrees & Partners v Rotex Europe Ltd [2019] EWHC 574 (TCC) Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart expressed concern about an attack on the credibility of an expert witness. In that case there was no evidence to support an assertion that…
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…
“OUTSIDE THE REALMS OF FICTION”, NOT NECESSARILY A PRUDENT WAY TO CONDUCT LITIGATION: WITNESS STATEMENTS, WITNESS SUMMARIES AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS:
In Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Relief from Sanctions 2) [2019] EWHC 346 (QB) Mr Justice Warby granted limited relief from sanctions to a litigant in person who had served “witness summaries” rather than witness…
THE DANGERS OF TAKING A ONE-SIDED WITNESS STATEMENT – A RECAP
A number of recent posts have looked at difficulties caused the the way in which evidence was collected and witness statements drafted. The taking of one-sided witness statements led to major difficulties for the party who were attempting to rely…
WITNESS EVIDENCE: GRAPPLE WITH THOSE DIFFICULTIES: KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CASE: OTHERWISE IT IS GOING TO COST YOU (ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF AN OFFER)
The previous post looked at the witness evidence of some of the claimants against one of the defendants in the case of Zagora Management Ltd & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 140 (TCC). Here we look at the…
WHEN WITNESSES GO “UP HILL AND DOWN DALE” IN AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE: TIME TO LOOK AT THE WAY STATEMENTS ARE PREPARED
The judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Zagora Management Ltd & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 140 (TCC) shows why witness statements should be considered carefully prior to…
KEEP YOUR WITNESS STATEMENTS SHORT AND TO THE POINT: A SHOT ACROSS THE LITIGANTS’ BOWS
In Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Azitio Holdings & Ors [2019] EWHC 305 (Comm) Mr Justice Andrew Baker refused the defendants’ application for an adjournment of a trial date. When doing so he sent a clear message as to the way in…
EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF
The judgment of HHJ Hampton in Smith -v- Ashwell Maintenance Limited (Leicester County Court 21/01/2019) is available through a Linked In post provided by barrister Andrew Mckie. It provides a number of lessons for those collecting evidence. In a case where…
PROVING THINGS 141: CREDIBILITY WAS IMPORTANT IN CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST SOLICITORS: SUPREME COURT RESTORES DECISION OF TRIAL JUDGE
In Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 the Supreme Court restored the decision of the trial judge in relation to damages. One of the key issues was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to overturn the trial judge’s factual…
WHEN WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE USELESS (AND PROBABLY HARMFUL): A FEW CASES TO ILLUSTRATE A COMMON POINT
For the third (and last) time I am returning to the judgment of HHJ Halliwell in Currie v Thornley & Anor [2019] EWHC. 172 (Ch). This time the judge’s observations in relation to witness statements. Using witness statements to “argue” the case…
PROVING THINGS 139: WHEN THE JUDGE HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER ITS ALL BEEN A BIT OF A CRUSH
Most of the cases looked at in this series are decisions in the High Court. However issues of witness credibility and accuracy are a constant issue throughout virtually every layer of court and tribunal. In Prosser v British Airways Plc [2018]…
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…
ADVERSE INFERENCES DRAWN WHEN SOLICITOR DID NOT GIVE EVIDENCE: IF YOU’VE HAD £22 MILLION YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN IT
In The Lord Chancellor v Blavo & Co Solictors Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 3556 (QB) Mr Justice Pepperall found it was appropriate to draw adverse inferences when key participants did not give evidence. It is another example of the principles…
“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…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.