THE SELF-CONFIDENT WITNESSES THAT CONVINCE THEMSELVES BUT NO-ONE CAN RELY ON
In Bhullar -v- Bhullar [2017] EWHC 407 (Ch) His Honour Judge Stephen Davies had the difficult task of ascertaining the truth in that most fraught and difficult of circumstances: a family that has been in business together and then fallen out….
EVIDENCE IN PART 8 APPLICATIONS: APPLY IN ADVANCE OR YOU WILL PROBABLY NOT BE ALLOWED TO CALL ANY
It is unusual to call evidence in Part 8 applications. This is made clear in the judgment of HH Walden-Smith in Wokingham Borough Council -v- Scott [2017] EWHC 294 (QB). A party failed to make an application to call oral…
ALL THE WITNESSES SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING 10 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE (AND NOT BELIEVED)
In Patel -v- Patel [2017] Andrew Simmonds QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) was considering the credibility of witnesses. The case is an interesting read in that it sets out detail of some of the cross-examination. It…
PROVING THINGS 53: BECAUSE A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST SOME OF THE TIME IT DOESN’T MEAN THEY WERE DISHONEST ALL OF THE TIME
The case of Pemberton Greenish LLP -v- Henry [2017] EWHC 246 (QB) provides an interesting assessment of witness evidence and demonstrates the difficulty in proving dishonesty. Mr Justice Jeremy Baker held that the fact that a solicitor was negligent, breached…
PROVING THINGS 52: SOLICITOR’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION FAILS ON ALL COUNTS: NO NEGLIGENCE AND NO LOSS
The judgment of HHH David Cooke today in Anderson Properties Ltd -v- Blyth Liggins [2017] EWHC 244 (Ch) is another example of a solicitor’s negligence case failing because of the absence of basic evidence in relation to liability, causation and damages….
THE MODERN JUDGE AND FACT FINDING: “TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION”
There is a full review of Sir Mark Hedley’s book The Modern Judge on Pink Tape, where Lucy Reed explains how the book mysteriously appeared in her hotel room the morning after the Family Law Awards. (Lucy speculates that Sir…
PROVING THINGS 51: NO EVIDENCE OF LOSS – NO DAMAGES: A LESSON TO SHARE
For the second time today we are looking at the judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Abbott -v- RCI Europe [2016] EWHC 2602 (Ch). This time in relation to the failure of the claimants to quantify or prove they had…
THE JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE: AN ESSENTIAL SUMMARY
In the judgment today in The Queen on the application of ASK -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 196 (Admin) Mr Justice Green sets out a template for the judicial assessment of evidence. It provides…
WHAT INFERENCES SHOULD THE JUDGE DRAW WHEN A WITNESS CLAIMS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?
The judgment of Mr Justice Nugee in Clydesdale Bank plc -v- Stoke Place Hotel Ltd (in administration) [2017] EWHC 181 (Ch) is another one of those cases we will look at twice. Both posts will be about the judge’s assessment…
EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY ON AN QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION: SNEAKING EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO WITNESS STATEMENTS: EVIDENCE IS STRUCK OUT
We have seen several examples of litigants attempting to give “expert” evidence in their witness statements. This practice was considered by Master Matthews in Change Red Limited -v- Barclays Bank PLC [2016] EWHC 3489 (Ch). The Master was considering whether…
PROVING THINGS 50: TO PROVE BREACH OF CONTRACT YOU FIRST HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACT
The judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Secker -v-Fairhill Property Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 69 (QB) may contain an important lesson about pleading as well as evidence. The claimant’s claim could not be put in negligence and her case based…
JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY: “THE MOST DIFFICULT AND OPINIONATED WITNESS I HAVE EVER HAD THE MISFORTUNE TO ENCOUNTER”
We have looked at the process of judicial assessment of witness credibility many times on this blog. Many of the robust judgments we have looked at pale into insignificance next to the judgment of His Honour Judge Hodge QC in…
PROVING THINGS 49: IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE DAMAGES WHEN THE OPINION EVIDENCE IN YOUR WITNESS STATEMENT HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT
The dangers of giving opinion evidence in witness statements are highlighted in the judgment today of Mr Justice Coulson in MacInnes -v- Gross [2017] EWHC 46 (QB). The opinion parts of the claimant’s witness statements were struck out. There was…
EVIDENCE, PROPORTIONALITY AND PREMIUMS II: NO SAVING OF ENERGY HERE
We have already looked at the judgment of Master Haworth in Savings Advice Limited -v- EDF Energy Customers Ltd [2017] EWHC B1 (Costs) in relation to the admissibility of evidence. Here we look at the judgment in relation to calculation of…
LAWYERS, LITIGATION & MEMORY II: HOW YOU ARE AFFECTING THE MEMORY OF WITNESSES (AND POSSIBLY SOWING THE SEEDS FOR DEFEAT)
The post on “Lawyers, litigation and memory”clearly struck a chord. It had many hundreds of readers (on a Sunday too). It highlights the fact that a failure to be trained in, and consider, issues relating to memory, causes litigators numerous…
LAWYERS, LITIGATION & MEMORY: THE MEMORY ILLUSION
A single moment of logical thought will lead to the conclusion that it is strange that lawyers don’t learn about memory. Much (indeed most) litigation relies on the memory of the parties. Judges are, more often than not, called upon…
ADVERSE INFERENCES NOT DRAWN WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE
There are several posts on the blog which deal with the approach the trial judge takes when certain witnesses are not present. In some cases it leads the judge to draw adverse inferences, in others it does not. In Welds…
PROVING THINGS 43: HOW THE COURT DECIDES: A PRIMER
The judgment of Master Matthews in Adepoju -v- Akinola [2016] EWHC 3160 (Ch) includes a useful primer on how the court goes about the task of deciding civil cases. “…the decision of the court is not necessarily the objective truth…
PROVING THINGS 40: NO EVIDENCE – NO LOSS: LITIGATION IS NOT A WALK IN THE PARK
A constant motif in this series has been the ability of litigants to arrive at trial and not be able to prove central parts of their case – including damages. This is exemplified in the judgment of Mr Justice Baker…
INTERPRETERS CANNOT (AND WOULD NOT) BE COMPELLED TO ATTEND TRIAL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION
The case of Kimathi -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3004 (QB) has already featured several times on this blog. Here we look at the judgment made last week relating to the defendant’s application that interpreters attend trial…
WITNESS STATEMENTS & DISCLOSURE: OMISSIONS MEAN THAT CASE FAILS AT SECOND HURDLE AND HAS TO GO BACK TO THE START
S When a proponent of proportionate litigation, such as Jackson L.J., orders a retrial in a case where the judgment was for £4,449 the case merits examination. In Knowles -v- Watson [2016] EWCA Civ 1122 a re-trial was ordered because…
WITNESS STATEMENT OF OPINION IS OF NO ASSISTANCE AND WAS NOT ADMITTED
There is a telling passage in the judgment of Richard Salter QC in St Vincent European General Partner Ltd -v- Robinson [2016] EWHC 2920 (Comm). A statement of bare opinion, with nothing to support it, was not admitted in evidence….
PROVING THINGS 37: ROBIN HOOD RIDES AGAIN: AN APPROACH TO DAMAGES THAT WAS "FUNDAMENTALLY DEFICIENT THROUGHOUT"
I have written before about the decision in relation to the the decision in the liquidation in the Robin Hood Centre. In the judgment at first instance the Registrar held that the claim against former directors had been vastly over-stated…
EVIDENCE, RETAINERS, ATTENDANCE NOTES AND WITNESS CREDIBILITY
There have been a number of recent cases where disgruntled clients have attempted to sue their lawyers. The judgments highlight the difficulties for trial judges who have to assess evidence after some lapse of time. They also highlight the importance…
PROVING THINGS 35: RECONSTRUCTION, DOCUMENTS AND MEMORY
Most law reports will look at the findings of law made in a judgment. In this blog we are interested in findings of fact and the way in which a judge goes about making those findings. A good example can…
PROVING THINGS 34 : THERE IS NO PRIMER FOR SCUTTLERS: WHEN YOUR SHIP DOESN'T COME IN
We have looked at many different types of case during this series. However this is the first time we have looked at an Admiralty case and at case about the “scuttling” of a ship. The judgment of Mr Justice…
THE MALLEABLE WITNESS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE LAWYERS WERE BLAMED FOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
We have looked before at cases where witnesses point to their lawyers when discrepancies appear in their witness statements. This can occur in every type of case as can be seen by the judgment of Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in Fluor…
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW VII: WITNESS STATEMENTS – SHORT AND SWEET IS BEST
We have already looked once this week at a judge’s viewpoint on the drafting of witness statements. In terms of advocacy they are crucial. The rules only allow the witness to give additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. Many cases that…
WITNESS STATEMENTS, THE WEATHER AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE…
The observations by District Judge Etherington reported by John Hyde in the Law Society Gazette deserve repetition and the widest audience possible. (The Readers’ comments on the article also make for interesting reading). THE GAZETTE REPORT The District Judge was speaking…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHEN THINGS GO WRONG – BLAME THE SOLICITOR
This blog has noted before that a witness whose evidence is not accepted often attempts to renege on their witness statement and blame their solicitor for the errors. Another example can be found in the recent decision of Mr Recorder…
PROVING THINGS 31: WITNESSES TEND TO REMEMBER WHAT THEY WANT TO REMEMBER
How do judges decide whether a witness is accurate in their recollection? This issue has been a common theme on this blog. This was an issue considered by Mark Cawson QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in The Connaught…
THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM ABSENT WITNESSES: EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT OVERRIDES HEARSAY
This blog has looked many times at cases which consider the practical implication of the test in Central Manchester Health Authority v W (A minor) [1998] PIQR P324: the inferences a trial judge should infer when witnesses are noted called at…
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW VI: HOW A JUDGE ASSESSES WITNESS EVIDENCE
We have covered many countries so far in this series which looks at the advice that judges give on advocacy. For the next few posts I have decided to stay closer to home. I want to look at the…
PROVING THINGS 30: OFFICE GOSSIP PROVES NOTHING: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
There is a requirement, a mandatory requirement, that a witness making a witness statement gives the source of their information and belief. This requirement is often ignored, or there is some vague and general wording of knowledge. Ignoring, and respecting,…
WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT ARE LARGELY DISREGARDED: A CASE IN POINT
Witness statements are often too long, contain inadmissible evidence and tendentious comments. An example can be see in the judgment in Moore -v- Moore [2016] EWHC 2202 (Ch) Mr S Monty QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHEN CAN A LAY WITNESS GIVE OPINION EVIDENCE?THE STATUTE, THE CASES & SOME GUIDANCE
I have written, many times, about the dangers of putting opinion evidence into witness statements. The attempts of witnesses to be experts, or to tell the judge what the outcome of the case should be, can lead to robust adverse…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE LAWYER'S DUTIES: A FAMILY CASE
There are some observations in the judgment in Hampshire County Council -v- O [2016] EW B22 (CC) that are of general importance. It relates to the duty of lawyers to ensure that witness statements are full and adequate. “It is…
BANQUO’S GHOST NOT AT THE FEAST: WHEN A KEY WITNESS IS NOT CALLED – THE INFERENCES A COURT WILL DRAW
There is an interesting discussion of the role of the “absent witness” in the judgment today of Mr Justice Kerr in O’Hare -v-Coutts & Co [2016] EWHC 2224 (QB). There are dangers in a party not calling someone who is…
YOU ARE PAYING YOUR WITNESSES BY RESULTS: WE WANT TO STRIKE YOU OUT
The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in EnergySolutions EU Limited -v- Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2016] EWHC 1988 (TCC) is a highly technical analysis of procurement legislation in an action that had already had a somewhat tortuous procedural history. However I…
PROVING THINGS 29: MAKE SURE THE WITNESS EVIDENCE DEALS WITH THE RELEVANT ISSUES
In Re B (a minor) (habitual residence) [2016] EWHC 2174 (Fam) Mr Justice Hayden had some important observations on the preparation of witness evidence. Although made in a family case the comments are of general observation: those who take witness…
YOUR WITNESSES ARE LINED UP ALL IN A ROW: THEN YOU MAY BE IN TROUBLE
Many cases have many witnesses saying, essentially, the same thing. Inconsistencies between witnesses are (often subconsciously) ironed out by lawyers during the statement stage. However consistency is not always a good thing. WHEN WITNESSES AGREE 100%: THEY’RE PROBABLY WRONG This…
CHALLENGING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE BY THE USE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PREQUEL
Last month I wrote about the decision of Mr Justice Edis in Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1962 (QB). One of the many issues the judge considered in that case was the admissibility of expert evidence to…
STATING THAT YOU ARE NOT WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT IS FAR FROM CONCLUSIVE
There are several reasons litigators should read the judgment of Master Matthews in Coral Reef Limited -v- Silverbond Enterprise Limited [2016] EWHC 874 Ch. For the discussion of whether a Master is bound by the decision of a High Court…
AN EXPERT DISPLAYING ZEALOTRY IS NO HELP AT ALL (AND USUALLY HARMFUL)
In the Matter of F (a Minor) EWHC 2149 (Fam)Mr Justice Hayden had to consider whether an expert report should be admitted in a family case. The comments on the expert evidence are of general relevance. “The overall impression is…
RE-VISITING WHITEHOUSE -v- JORDAN 1: THESE APPEALS WERE NOT ABOUT CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AT ALL: IT’S ALL ABOUT THE FACTS
The decisions of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Whitehouse -v- Jordan are often put forward as seminal cases in the law of clinical negligence. However these appeals, in reality, were not about issues relating to clinical…
ATTRITIONAL WARFARE; UNMERITORIOUS POINTS AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH: SO MUCH (AND MORE) IN ONE JUDGMENT
The judgment today of Mr Justice Edis in Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust makes for uncomfortable reading on the issue of the general attitude of the lawyers towards the conduct of the litigation. In addition to…
THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 4: DON'T MAKE ALLEGATIONS OF LYING IF YOU HAVEN'T PUT THEM TO THE WITNESS
The previous posts* on the Arroyo judgment have concentrated, for the most part, on the judge’s criticisms of the evidence of the claimant. However there is one short passage which illustrates an important principle of litigation – a party cannot…
THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 3: WITNESSES AND CREDIBILITY
This is the third in the series of posts on the judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC. The first looked at the issues that arose from unchecked schedules of damages; the second at the…
PROVING THINGS 26: DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN WHAT YOU CAN REMEMBER AND WHAT YOU NOW THINK YOU DID
There have been a large number of posts on this blog about witness evidence, in particular the way that the courts assess the accuracy of evidence. A surprising number of these have been in the context of clinical negligence claims….
KEEPING PARTIES OUT OF COURT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
The practice of sending witnesses out of court whilst evidence is being given is extremely rare in civil cases. It was considered by the Court of Appeal in Da Costa -v- Sargaco [2016] EWCA Civ 764. “… whilst there may…
You must be logged in to post a comment.