Tag Archives: Witness evidence

LAWYERS, LITIGATION & MEMORY II: HOW YOU ARE AFFECTING THE MEMORY OF WITNESSES (AND POSSIBLY SOWING THE SEEDS FOR DEFEAT)

The post on “Lawyers, litigation and memory“clearly struck a chord. It had many hundreds of readers (on a Sunday too). It highlights the fact that a failure to be trained in, and consider, issues relating to memory, causes litigators numerous problems.  These problems only become apparent once a witness is cross-examined. Here we look at […]

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 to decide whose memory of events is the most accurate. The judge cannot shy away […]

ADVERSE INFERENCES NOT DRAWN WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE

There are several posts on the blog which deal with the approach the trial judge takes when certain witnesses are not present.  In some cases it leads the judge to draw adverse inferences, in others it does not.  In Welds -v- Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust & Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2016] 3325 […]

PROVING THINGS 43: HOW THE COURT DECIDES: A PRIMER

The judgment of Master Matthews in Adepoju -v- Akinola [2016] EWHC 3160 (Ch) includes a useful primer on how the court goes about the task of deciding civil cases. “…the decision of the court is not necessarily the objective truth of the matters in issue. Instead it is the most likely view of what happened, […]

PROVING THINGS 40: NO EVIDENCE – NO LOSS: LITIGATION IS NOT A WALK IN THE PARK

A constant motif in this series has been the ability of litigants to arrive at trial and not be able to prove central parts of their case – including damages.  This is exemplified in the judgment of Mr Justice Baker in Francis -v- Knapper [2016] EWHC 3093 (QB). After a six day trial the claimants […]

INTERPRETERS CANNOT (AND WOULD NOT) BE COMPELLED TO ATTEND TRIAL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION

The case of Kimathi -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3004 (QB) has already featured several times on this blog.  Here we look at the judgment made last week relating to the defendant’s application that interpreters attend trial to give evidence.  It also provides an important example of the court considering and applying […]

WITNESS STATEMENTS & DISCLOSURE: OMISSIONS MEAN THAT CASE FAILS AT SECOND HURDLE AND HAS TO GO BACK TO THE START

S  When a proponent of proportionate litigation, such as Jackson L.J., orders a retrial in a case where the judgment was for £4,449 the case merits examination. In Knowles -v- Watson [2016] EWCA Civ 1122 a re-trial was ordered because of issues relating to disclosure. KEY POINTS It is prudent to include all material facts […]