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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: “THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES…”
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 19th JUNE 2026 (TOGETHER WITH A USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERIES OF CHECKLISTS)
  • THE “WEAPONISATION” OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT’S NOT CLEVER, IT’S NOT “TOUGH” AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE “A GREAT MYSTERY” TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS…)

Top Posts

  • THE "WEAPONISATION" OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT'S NOT CLEVER, IT'S NOT "TOUGH" AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A "NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE" (APRIL 2018)
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: "THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES..."
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE "A GREAT MYSTERY" TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS...)

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.