Monthly Archives: December 2015

TEN NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS FOR LITIGATORS IN 2016

Some resolutions to keep you prosperous and out of difficulties in 2016. (Happy New Year) 1. NEVER, EVER, GUESS ABOUT A LIMITATION PERIOD (OR TAKE A CLIENT’S WORD FOR IT) Litigators of all types must have a clear idea about the relevant limitation period in every case they handle. It is unwise to “guess”, certainty […]

CIVIL CASE OF THE YEAR? AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL THOSE WHO ASSERT THAT “LITIGATION IS VERY MUCH AN OPTIONAL ACTIVITY”

There are many candidates for civil case of the year. I have chosen one that has not made new law or set out any major principles. However it is a case that is symptomatic of the major mistakes made when court fees were vastly increased. It belies, totally, the assertion made in the House of […]

CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2015: POETRY, CARPET BOMBING AND DISAPPEARING EXPERTS

We civil litigators cannot be left out of the, apparently universal, need for  an annual review. The annual review last year was headed with the words “prolixity”, “sanctions” and creative writing.  Here we look at poetry, carpet bombing and disappearing experts. A more systematic review can be found in Herbert Smith Freehills’  A Litigator’s Yearbook […]

WITNESS EVIDENCE AND CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS 2: A USEFUL COUNTERBALANCE

A post earlier this month looked at a case where the judge favoured the witness evidence over a written medical record.  The decision in Grimstone -v- Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 3756 (QB) is a useful counterbalance to that. KEY POINTS Although a doctor could remember nothing of the consultation […]

THE GAME MUST BE WORTH THE CANDLE: ACTION STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS BECAUSE THE CLAIMANT HAD NOTHING TO GAIN

In IG Index Ltd -v- Cloete [2015] EWHC 3698 (QB) HHJ Richard Parkes QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) struck out an action on the grounds that the claimant had nothing to gain. KEY POINTS The court found that the claimant had nothing to gain by the matter proceeding to trial. The […]

CORROBORATIVE WITNESSES : “SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE” ALLOWED IN TEST CASE

We have already looked at the decision in Kimathi -v- Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2015]EWHC 3432 (QB) in relation to the issue of historians being called as witnesses.  Here we look at the judgment in relation to corroborative/”similar fact” evidence. KEY POINTS The witness statements of individuals who stated they had suffered the same experiences as […]

SOME WITNESSES MAY NOT BE GOOD HISTORIANS BUT GOOD HISTORIANS CANNOT BE WITNESSES

In Kimathi -v- Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2015]EWHC 3432 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart considered a number of issues relating to witness statements. Here we consider whether the evidence of historians is admissible.  Other aspects of this case will be examined in later posts. “It is not the function of an expert to express opinions on […]