LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS SUMMARIES: HERE’S AN INGENIOUS ARGUMENT – THAT DIDN’T WORK: PERMISSION TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FROM PARTIES OWN WITNESS ALSO REFUSED
In Smith & Anor v Crawshay [2019] EWHC 2507 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews considered an argument that the defendant was allowed to rely on a witness summary. He also refused permission to adduce further evidence in evidence-in-chief from a witness…
LAWYERS GIVING EVIDENCE 3: THE SOLICITOR (GIVING EVIDENCE WHILST REPRESENTING HIS CLIENTS) HAD BECOME FAR TOO CLOSE TO THE CASE TO BE OBJECTIVE
In the third post on the dangers of lawyers giving evidence we are looking at the judgment of Recorder Monty QC in Afia v Mellor & Anor [2013] EW Misc 23 (CC). The only witness called for the defendants was…
“WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SKELETON ARGUMENT AND A WITNESS STATEMENT?” NOW THERE’S A QUESTION…
That very question “the difference between a skeleton argument and a witness statement” appeared in a search that led someone to this blog today. It may be worrying that someone has to ask. The important distinction is often ignored. Day…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DANGERS OF INADVERTENTLY MISLEADING THE COURT: CHECK BEFORE YOU ASSERT (ALSO A MESSAGE HERE FOR EXPERTS)
The judgment of Master Clark in Baynton-Williams v Baynton-Williams [2019] EWHC 2179 (Ch) contains a number of important lessons : (i) for anyone preparing a witness statement to be careful not to inadvertently mislead the court; (ii) for experts – on…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 59: WHEN A CLIENT DISOWNS THEIR OWN WITNESS STATEMENT? SELF PROTECTION FOR THE LAWYER
There has been much discussion on Twitter tonight in relation to the language used in witness statements. That led to this account being given by “Sweary Expat” a lawyer based in the Cayman Islands (some people clearly have to suffer…
BOTH SIDES LATE WITH WITNESS EVIDENCE: BOTH SIDES REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: DEUCE IN A JUICE CASE
There are many interesting aspects of the judgment in Goknur Gida Maddeleri Enerji Imalat Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret VE Sanati A.S (Goknur) v Organic Village Ltd [2019] EWHC 2201 (QB), not least that both sides were in default in relation to…
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT LITIGATORS KNOW HOW TO COMPUTE TIME PROPERLY: 7 DAYS MEANS 7 DAYS: APPLICATION TWO DAYS LATE: CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF
In Evans v Pinsent Masons LLP [2019] EWHC 2150 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturned a decision granting relief from sanctions. A major issue arose out of confusion by the claimant’s solicitors over the calculation of the time period. This…
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 &…
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: MENTION MUST MEAN “SPECIFICALLY MENTION”
The judgment in Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) also considered, and rejected, the claimant’s application for specific disclosure of documents. Mr Justice Warby held that for an order to be made under CPR 31.15 there must be…
SIXTH ANNIVERSARY OF CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF (AS A BLOG): A REVIEW OF ADVICE RECEIVED FROM ACROSS THE PROFESSION AND ACROSS THE WORLD
Today marks the 6th anniversary of the blog. Last year I did a detailed review of many of the series and key points over the previous years. To celebrate this year I am concentrating on the contributions made by others….
PROVING THINGS 155: WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT GOES WRONG: HOTEL PROPRIETOR NOT LIABLE TO GUEST FOR ASSAULT BY TRESPASSER
In Al-Najar & Ors v The Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1593 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans found that proprietors of a hotel had not been in breach of duty when some of their guests had been assaulted by a…
THE DANGERS OF A LAWYER GIVING EVIDENCE: A “SOMEWHAT STRANGLED VERSION” OF THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION & BELIEF: SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION DISMISSED BECAUSE OF PAUCITY OF FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE
There are numerous posts on the blog about the need for first-hand evidence to be given, and the dangers of a lawyer making witness statements. These risks are exemplified in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh today in The David…
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…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 47: THE FORMAL (AND MANDATORY) REQUIREMENTS OF A WITNESS STATEMENT: A CHECKLIST
Another short post caused by a discussion on Twitter about the number of witness statements that fail to comply with the most basic, mandatory, obligations in the Rules. The formal requirements of a witness statement are overlooked at the litigator’s…
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…
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…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 40: HOW CIVIL JUDGES DECIDE CASES
In Knight & Anor v Knight & Ors [2019] EWHC 915 (Ch) HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) set out a summary of how civil judges decide cases. It is a useful reminder to all of those involved…
WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE WITNESS CANNOT READ ENGLISH: NOT GROUNDS FOR STRIKING OUT, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS MAY NOT BE REQUIRED
In Waraich & Anor v Ansari Solicitors (A firm) [2019] EWHC 1038 (Comm) HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered the issues that arose when a point arose at the beginning of a trial in relation to signature…
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…
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…
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF REFUSED AFTER LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS
In SRI Lalithambika Foods Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 761 (Admin) Charles Bourne QC, sitting as a High Court Judge, refused the claimant’s application to rely on witness statements…
GIVING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: JUST BECAUSE THE COURT HAS SAID YOU MAY – IT DOESN’T MEAN YOU WILL: HOW TO FAIL OF YOUR OWN ACCORD
Trials are always stressful events for the participants. They require careful preparation and are usually subject to close case management. Imagine the difficulties when you turn up at the trial and the judge says that the evidence you are relying…
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…
“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…
SOMETHING FOR THE WEEKEND: THE THIRD POST THIS WEEK ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: WHEN A SOLICITOR SIGNS A STATEMENT OF TRUTH ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT
I am returning, again, to the consequences of the Court of Appeal judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392, “the deliberate or reckless making of a false statement in a document verified by a statement of…
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…
THE POST OFFICE CASE (AGAIN): STRIKING OUT PASSAGES IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DEFENDANT WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS
For the third time today I am writing about the case of Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd [2018] EWHC 2698 (QB). However we are now looking at the earlier interlocutory application by the defendant to strike out large parts…
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…
“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…
DEFAULT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: ACTION THEN STRUCK OUT: REMEMBERING THE BASIC OBLIGATION TO FILE A DEFENCE – ON TIME
In Workman v Deansgate 123 LLP [2019] EWHC 360 (QB) Mr Justice William Davis allowed an application to set aside a default judgment and relief from sanctions. The most surprising procedural aspect of this case is the defendant’s failure to file…
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…
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…
VIEWING THE WOOD FROM THE TREES: ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: A “CUT OUT AND KEEP” GUIDE
The judgment of Teare J in Deripaska and Danilina v Chernukhin case [2019] EWHC 173 (Comm), is (at present) only available via a link on the Serle Court website. It is useful in that a few paragraphs encapsulate the judicial approach to…
HAVING A COPY OF WITNESS STATEMENTS AVAILABLE AT COURT: IT IS IN THE RULES
One other aspect of the decision in Prosser v British Airways Plc [2018] EW Misc B13 is worth noting. There was a rare reference to the requirements of CPR 32.13(1). Copy witness statements must be available at the trial for inspection. …
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]…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 28: EXHIBITS TO WITNESS STATEMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS
The “exhibiting” of documents to witness statements and affidavits is common. It is surprising how common it is for the exhibit, and the witness statement, to fail to comply with the rules. Here we look at the rules relating to…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 27: WAIVING LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT
One matter that all litigators must be aware of is that there is a risk of waiving privilege when mentioning legal advice in a witness statement. This can (and does) happen even when the statement states, expressly, that the maker…
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…
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND TRANSLATION: WHY YOU CAN’T RELY ON PD 22 IN RELATION TO WITNESS STATEMENTS
This is the third post on this subject in one day. Someone responded to the first post on the need to for witness statements to be in the language of the witness by asserting that Practice Direction 22 could be…
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…
LINKS TO GUIDANCE ON DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENT: INTERACTIVE BLOGGING
Yesterday I was speaking on the APIL Fatal Accidents course. One of the points I was making was the importance of reading the rules and and guidance in relation to the drafting of witness statements. The delegates asked for links…
YOU’RE FIRED: A LITIGATOR ON THE APPRENTICE 8: “THE BIGGEST ATTEMPT AT ROBBERY SINCE HATTON GARDEN”: DID OUR LAWYER GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY?
We have one surviving lawyer – Sarah Ann. This week she switched teams – to “Collaborative” and turned her hand to garden design, even getting her hands dirty in the process. Her team won. This series continues for another week….
THE DANGERS OF BEING “BULLISH” ON PROCEDURAL ISSUES: APPLICATION DISMISSED (AND IT TOOK TOO LONG)
In Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2794 (Ch) Master Clark completed the judgment”I conclude by noting the regrettable extent to which this judgment has been lengthened by the determination of the procedural points of…
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…
THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: WHY YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS NEED REGULAR REMINDERS OF THE RULES & CASES
In Recovery Partners GP Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors [2018] EWHC 2918 (Comm) Mrs Justice Cockerill made some important observations that apply to every aspect of litigation. We looked at the case yesterday: a stark reminder was provided of the dangers…
You must be logged in to post a comment.