Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Witness summaries
PARTY ALLOWED TO RELY ON WITNESS SUMMARIES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN PERMISSION SOUGHT RETROSPECTIVELY

PARTY ALLOWED TO RELY ON WITNESS SUMMARIES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN PERMISSION SOUGHT RETROSPECTIVELY

May 19, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In Benyatov v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd [2021] EWHC 1318 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman gave the claimant permission to rely on witness summaries. He also granted the claimant relief from sanctions in relation to late service of those summaries. …

WITNESS SUMMARIES,  WITNESS SUMMONSES AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL IN ONE CASE...

WITNESS SUMMARIES, WITNESS SUMMONSES AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL IN ONE CASE…

October 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In Morley (t/a Morley Estates) v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2019] EWHC 2865 (Ch) Mr Justice Kerr granted the claimant’s application to rely on witness summaries and refused the defendant’s application to set aside witness summonses.  The judge…

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

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

September 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

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…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 32: BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE THE HUMBLE WITNESS SUMMARY: IT COULD BITE BACK - WITH VENGEANCE

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 32: BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE THE HUMBLE WITNESS SUMMARY: IT COULD BITE BACK – WITH VENGEANCE

February 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Witness statements

The earlier post on the judgment of HHJ Hampton in Smith -v- Ashwell Maintenance Limited(Leicester County Court 21/01/2019) highlighted how dangerous it is for a party to serve a witness summary.   Here we look at the rules relating to witness summaries, the…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 82: THE PROFOUND DANGERS OF AN EXPERT USING AI: “A SIGNIFICANT GAP BETWEEN THE VOICE AND OPINION OF THE EXPERT AND THE REPORT WHICH SHE HAS FILED”
  • SERVICE POINTS 58: ACCIDENT IN ENGLAND, CLAIMANTS LIVING IN AUSTRALIA: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION REFUSED
  • EXPERT WATCH 81: EXPERT EVIDENCE ON APPEAL: COMPANY PERMITTED TO RELY ON IT EXPERT TO EXPLAIN WHY ITS DIRECTORS THOUGHT A REGULATOR’S EMAIL WAS A PHISHING ATTEMPT
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: IN THE RUN UP TO HALLOWEEN: MISSIVES FROM THE BENCH (OCTOBER 2021): “THAT ONE’S HALF BLIND AND HALF DEAF. I CALL HIM THE COURT OF APPEAL…”
  • THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT PICK AND CHOOSE THE EVIDENCE IT PUTS BEFORE THE COURT: A WITNESS STATEMENT BREACHED THE DUTY OF CANDOUR OWED: WHAT YOU LEAVE OUT CAN SOMETIMES BE MORE IMPORTANT THAT WHAT YOU PUT IN…

Top Posts

CLAIMANT'S CLAIM AGAINST INSURER FAILS: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLD DECISION THAT THE INSURED'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT
"THIS IS NOT THE MANNER IN WHICH AN APPLICATION SHOULD BE MADE": EMAILS TO THE COURT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF APPLICATIONS
NO FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY WHERE A CLAIMANT GAVE AN ACCOUNT DIFFERENT TO HER LETTER OF CLAIM: (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE)
NON-COMPLIANT CLAIMANTS ARE IN THE LAST CHANCE SALOON (AND THERE ARE 5,000 OF THEM): BUT PARTICULARS MUST BE SERVED AND ADVERSE COSTS STILL PAID
EXPERT WATCH 82: THE PROFOUND DANGERS OF AN EXPERT USING AI: "A SIGNIFICANT GAP BETWEEN THE VOICE AND OPINION OF THE EXPERT AND THE REPORT WHICH SHE HAS FILED”

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.