SIGNING THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH IN PRE-ACTION DOCUMENTS: WILL THE SOLICITOR GO TO JAIL OR NOT?
There has already been some discussion in the Gazette about the judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB). In particular the observations in relation to signature of documents by the legal representative. This…
PROVING THINGS 78: AN ABSENT WITNESS IS NEVER GOING TO HELP: DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TAKE CONTEMPORARY STATEMENTS LEADS TO ADVERSE INFERENCES
In a talk today to a group of clinical negligence lawyers I discussed the issue of evidence, and “missing” documents and witnesses. In particular the relevance of Keefe v Isle of Man Steam Packet Co Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 683 on the…
LEGAL QUACKERY & AN “OVERWHELMING MIASMA OF FAKE LAW” : OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND OBSTRUCTING THE COURT SYSTEM
I usually confine this blog to cases relating to the law in England and Wales. However the judgment of Noonan J in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank -v- Martin & anor [2017] IEHC 707 was brought to my attention by an…
HOW MANY LITIGANTS HAVE REGRETTED STARTING THE CASE? POISE AND POLISH IS NEVER ENOUGH IN A COURT ROOM
This one paragraph from a judgement yesterday gives pause for thought. “The Claimant observed somewhat wistfully towards the conclusion of the trial that had he anticipated what was entailed, he would not have brought this claim in the first place….
PROVING THINGS 76: A RECAP – I DIDN’T EXPECT TO GET THIS FAR…
Today saw the 75th in the series “proving things”. I never anticipated that the series would run so long, I initially planned around 10 posts. Now we have reached 75 (and with no plans to stop) this is an appropriate…
APPEALS ON FACTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: DAMNED IF THE WITNESSES AGREE: DAMNED IF THEY DON’T
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Shittu v The Home Office [2017] EWCA Civ 1748 contains some interesting observations about attempts to appeal on findings of fact, “judgecraft” and fact-finding generally. “The case followed the pattern of many…
WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL ME THAT BEFORE WE WENT INTO COURT? THINGS LAWYERS LEARN HALF WAY THROUGH A TRIAL
The post earlier today on a case where key facts came to light on the third day of a trial led me to ask lawyers if they had similar experiences. That sudden, and unexpected, “surprise” bit of evidence which no-one…
A LESSON FOR ANYONE DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS: GO ON – HAVE A BIT OF A DIG: WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Riva Properties Ltd & Ors v Foster + Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC) contains further examples of the dangers of making comments in witness statements. A witness statement is for facts, comments and stage…
ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES: PROBLEMS WITH INDEPENDENCE WHEN THE WITNESS REQUIRES A TRANSLATOR
Who is going to be believed? This is the central question in many (if not most) cases that go to trial. The judgment of Miss Amanda Tipples QC in Frenkel v Lyampert & Ors [2017] EWHC 2223 (Ch) shows many of…
PROVING THINGS 67: THE DIFFICULTIES WHEN WITNESSES DEPARTS FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT: MULTIPLE INCONSISTENCIES DAMAGE CREDIBILITY
I am grateful to my colleague Colm Nugent for sending me a copy of the decision in Baker -v- British Gas Services (Commercial) Limited [2017] EWHC 2302. Amanda Yip QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court*), considered…
WITNESSES, STATEMENTS AND LAWYERS – “SELF PROTECTION”: A QUICK RECAP
Sometimes, quite often in fact, clients need “protecting” from lawyers who are preparing witness statements on their behalf. I have dealt with this in previous posts and will write on this again in the near future. However here I want…
THROWING EVERYTHING IN AT TRIAL- INCLUDING THE KITCHEN CABINET: YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR CASE (AND PLEAD IT)
There are some important observations in the judgment of Mr Justice Henry Carr in Neptune (Europe) Ltd v Devol Kitchens Ltd [2017] EWHC 2172 (Pat) about the need to plead and put a case at trial. An attempt to introduce a…
WITNESS STATEMENTS “INADMISSIBLE”: CONTAINED “SUBJECTIVE INTENTION”, “OPINION” AND “LEGAL ARGUMENT”: ANOTHER EXAMPLE
A brief passage under the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd v Fougera Sweden Holding 2 AB [2017] EWHC 1995 (Ch) serves to show how much “witness evidence” served by a litigant can, in fact, be inadmissible….
DEFENDANT DEBARRED FROM CALLING WITNESS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDING FOR DEFENDANT
The case of Durrant -v- Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary is a long-running saga. We have looked at it twice before. The incident occurred in 2009. In 2013 the Court of Appeal overturned a judge’s decision to grant…
WRITING TO THE COURT UNILATERALLY (AGAIN) – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND WHY JUDGES NEED THE PATIENCE OF A SAINT
I have no plans to expand this blog to cover issues relating to procedure in Employment Tribunals. However there are certain passages of the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr in Jones v The Secretary of State for Business Innovation &…
“MUST” MEANS “MUST”: WHEN CRUCIAL PARTS OF YOUR EVIDENCE AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN GOSSIP AND RUMOUR IT CAN BE COSTLY.
I have already written that there are many reasons litigators should read the judgment of Lady Justice Thirwall in Marsh -v- Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 1040 (QB) (the subsequent judgment on costs is also worth reading and will be covered soon)….
A MATTER OF EVIDENCE AND A MATTER OF FACT: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE ACTION WITH “AN OBVIOUS LACUNA IN THE DEFENDANT’S CASE”
Last year I wrote a series of posts about the seminal case of Whitehouse -v- Jordan. The aim was to point out that the essence of the decision was about findings of fact not legal principle. The House of Lords upheld…
MEMORIES, WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE: A SCIENTIFIC VIEW: WHAT EXPERTS WISH YOU KNEW
I have written before about the issue of memory and witness evidence. I have also written about the work of Dr Julia Shaw on this subject. More guidance can be found in her article in the Scientific American What Experts…
WITNESS STATEMENTS DIRECT: MEMORY, GESTMIN £15 MILLION AND QUITE A LOT OF ALCOHOL: A HEADY BREW
There is a certain appropriateness in one of the last major first-instance judgments of Mr Justice Leggatt being about witness credibility and the Gestmin criteria. In Blue -v- Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm) Gestmin figured heavily. Everyone believed they were…
UNDOUBTED FLAWS IN THE WAY WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE DRAFTED: LEADS TO A WASTE OF TIME AND COSTS
There are many reasons litigators should read the judgment of Lady Justice Thirwall in Marsh -v- Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 1040 (QB, Here I want to concentrate upon the witness statements, in particular the defendant’s witness statements. It is another…
PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST A WITNESS THAT BLAMES YOU: A CASE TO POINT
I have written before about the problems that can arise when a witness “turns” on the person who prepared their witness statement. An errant witness will often blame the person who took the statement. This issue can be seen, with…
INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS AND THE TIME FACTOR: DENTON, WITNESS STATEMENTS AND AMENDMENT: A HEARING WHEN SEVEN TIMES MORE TIME WAS NEEDED
The judgment of Mrs Justice May DBE in Myall -v- Ministry of Defence [2017] EWHC 1752 (QB) emphasises the point that many interlocutory appeals come about not so much because of judicial error but because of the lack of time…
THE DANGERS OF SELECTIVE WITNESS EVIDENCE: WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS “UNSATISFACTORY” AND “SIMPLY NOT RELIABLE”
I am returning for the third time (and not the last time) to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC). We have already looked at the (relatively mild) criticisms of…
NOT ALL WITNESS STATEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC AHEAD OF A TRIAL: THE TIMES HAS TO WAIT
In Blue -v- Ashley & The Times Newspapers Limited [2017] EWHC 1553 (Comm) Mr Justice Leggatt considered whether a witness statement should be disclosed to the public when it had been referred to at a pre-trial hearing. The application was…
WHEN LIFE MIMICS ART: (OR ART MIMICS LIFE): WIGAPEDIA, LEGAL CHEEK – AND WHO PREPARED YOUR WITNESS STATEMENT?
I recommend that all litigators read Wigapedia’s “Jargon Buster Litigation Edition” in Legal Cheek. As ever Wigapedia is cruel but fair in his definitions – “Brief – a document which very rarely is”. With Wigapedia’s permission I am taking up…
PROVING THINGS 62: “TOTALLY UNSATISFACTORY” EVIDENCE AT TRIAL FAILS TO PROVE SPECIAL DAMAGES
I wrote about the judgment in Stewart & Chergui -v- The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2017] EWHC 921 (QB), yesterday. There is no harm in repeating one element of that post in this series. I am repeating it because…
AMENDMENT, PLEADINGS, NEARLY OPPRESSIVE CONDUCT AND PROLIX WITNESS STATEMENTS: MASTER ISSUES AN EARLY WARNING
In Williers -v Joyce [2017] EWHC 1225 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh issued a number of warnings in relation to procedural issues. Amendment, conduct, pleadings, disclosure and witness statements are considered. (The judgment also contains a full copy of the re-amended…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 3: WITNESS STATEMENTS: LITIGANTS IN PERSON ARE BETTER THAN LAWYERS
I attended the APIL conference because I was asked to talk about “proving things”, that is the basic task of establishing a case by evidence. The fact that this blog has a long-running series on this issue may have played…
WHEN THE WITNESS EVIDENCE SIMPLY SAYS – “I AGREE WITH HIM”
There was a post on this blog earlier this week about the issues caused by similar witness statements. Another intriguing problems is what happens when the witness simply says “I agree with…” the other witness. This type of “evidence” is…
WHEN THE WITNESSES ALL SAY THE SAME THING: A RECAP
There has been some discussion on Twitter this morning about the issues that arise when witnesses make statements that are, to all intents and purposes, identical. It provides an opportunity to look at some cases on this issue. They make…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE: CHANGING WITNESS STATEMENTS, DESTROYED DOCUMENTS AND THE DEFENDANT’S WITNESS WITH NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL
The judgment of Mr Justice Goss in RE -v- Calderdale & Huddersfield Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 824 (QB) shows some concern about the nature of the evidence adduced by the defendant. Documents had been (inadvertently) destroyed and definitely altered. Witnesses…
WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE “INDEPENDENT” WITNESS IS NOT ACCEPTED: WHEN WE WILL EVER LEARN?
In a case where there are disputed facts a party that has an independent witness usually holds a strong hand. However in Elson -v- Stilgoe [2017] EWCA Civ 193 today the Court of Appeal upheld a decision where the trial…
WHEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS MAKE WITNESS STATEMENTS: FAREPAK REVISITED
There was a post earlier this week where a public official faced contempt of court proceedings that was “false and tended to mislead”, and was acquitted because the statement was “careless” rather than criminal. This provides a good opportunity to…
WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL SIGNS A “CARELESS” WITNESS STATEMENT THAT WAS “FALSE AND TENDED TO MISLEAD”: NOT IMPRESSIVE TO SAY THE LEAST
There are many cases that show a surprisingly insouciant approach to accuracy by those who draft, and those who sign, witness statements. This insouciance is even more surprising when the person who has signed the statement is a public official,…
EVIDENCE IN HOLIDAY ILLNESS CLAIMS: COURSE IN LIVERPOOL: 13th MARCH 2017: 2 – 4.30
I am presenting a course on behalf of Diversify Law Limited on “Evidence in Holiday Illness Claims”, in Liverpool on the 13th March 2017 2 – 4.30. VENUE (CLOSE TO THE CAVERN) It is at the “Hard Days Night” Hotel….
DISCLOSURE, CASE MANAGEMENT, THE COLLATERAL USE OF DOCUMENTS AND PROPORTIONALITY
There are some passages in the judgment of Mr Justice Knowles in Tchenguiz -v- Grant Thornton UK LLP [2017] EWHC 310 (Comm) which highlight, succinctly, the nature of disclosure and the scope of “collateral use protection” in relation to documents…
WITNESS STATEMENTS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: IDENTICAL WITNESS STATEMENTS DID NOT DAMAGE CREDIBILITY (THIS TIME)
I spent a day this week giving a seminar to a specialist group of clinical negligence lawyers on the importance of witness statements. I mention this because, as always happens, there is a clear example of this in the judgment…
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…
ANODYNE WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHAT DOES IT TELL YOU WHEN A JUDGE PREFERS THE ORAL EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS- THAT CONTRADICTS THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT
There is an interesting observation in the judgment of Mrs Justice Rose in Singularis Holdings Ltd -v- Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch). It may well show much about the way in which witness statements are prepared. “……
YOUR WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE IDENTICAL: NOW THAT IS A COINCIDENCE
There are, it seems, litigators out there who believe that the filing of numerous identical witness statements adds weight to their case. Advocates of this approach may want to read the judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Abbott -v-…
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…
BANKERS, WITNESS STATEMENTS AND CREDIBILITY: THE ENIGMATIC WITNESS
The judgment of Mr Justice Nugee in Clydesdale Bank plc -v- Stoke Place Hotel Ltd (in administration) [2017] EWHC 181 (Ch) also contains an analysis of a witness who was “something of an enigma” “Although a witness statement should be…
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 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…
IF YOU ARE BELIEVED YOU WILL WIN: THE NEED FOR A DEVIL'S ADVOCATE IN CIVIL LITIGATION
The post written yesterday on litigators and memory has already given rise to a large number of responses, particularly on Twitter. It is worthwhile taking the matter further by considering how and when a litigator should take stock of the quality…
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…
PROVING THINGS 45: IF YOU CAN'T PROVE LOSS THE DEFENDANT IS GOING TO GET SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This series (and this blog) have looked at several cases where a party has asserted a loss but not been able to prove it. There are a large number of cases where a party fails to put the basic information…
TAKING WITNESS STATEMENTS AND FACT FINDING: VEHEMENT CRITICISM (OF A SURPRISING SOURCE)
The need to take care when drafting witness statements has been a regular theme of this blog. The delegating of witness statements to a party or client is an extremely dangerous (and foolish) practice. I have also examined, regularly,…
PROVING THINGS 42: SILENCE DOES NOT PROVE INDUCEMENT
We are returning to the case of Francis -v- Knapper [2016] EWHC 3093 (QB). That case has been looked at in relation to a failure to prove damages. However the claimants also had major evidential problems in proving misrepresentation. KEY POINTS…
You must be logged in to post a comment.