DECISION NOT TO ADMIT LATE WITNESS EVIDENCE UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

There is a brief report on Lawtel of the decision in Judges Sykes Frixous -v- Bhabra (CA 14/010/2016).*  This provides another example of a party (unsuccessfully) trying to serve witness evidence late in the day.  There are numerous posts on this blog (set out below) which set out the real difficulties and dangers involved when the rules for service of witness evidence are not complied with.

THE CASE

  • The claimant sought payment under guarantees for payment of legal fees.
  • The original trial date was adjourned due to late submission of witness statements and an order was made for exchange.
  • The defendant sought to admit a further statement the day before trial.
  • At the opening of the trial the defendant sought to admit a further statement which had been filed in support of an application to set judgment aside.
  • The judge refused the applications.

THE APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL

The appeal was refused:

  • Court orders for witness statements were intended to be adhered to.
  • There was a serious breach of a court order with no good reason.
  • The applications were made extremely late.
  • The admission of the statements would have lead to another adjournment.

* This post is based on the Lawtel summary.

RELATED POSTS

The issues relating to late service of witness evidence has been a constant theme of this blog

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: