W - Witness statements
11/6/20
BRAKE v GUY [2020] EWHC 1484 (Ch)
Evidence in a witness statement on an interim application cannot be disbelieved unless it is simply incredible [17]. Considers principles on which the court will order security for costs against an individual claimant under CPR 25.13(2)(g) because the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him [36]. During the hearing the defendant conceded the test was not satisfied, but the court would not have ordered security in any event. The defendant was therefore liable to pay the claimant’s costs but there was nothing sufficiently out of the norm to justify assessment on the indemnity basis [75].
1/5/20
BROOMHEAD v NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC [2020] EWHC 1005 (Ch)
Considers the test for pleading dishonesty [18] and the circumstances in which a judgment will be set aside on grounds that it was obtained by fraud [19]. Stresses the need to identify sources of information and belief in statements making serious allegations of dishonesty [32]. On the facts the claim was inadequately pleaded, bound to fail and the particulars of claim would be struck out but the claimant would be given an opportunity to re-plead its case and seek permission to amend.
13/3/20
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (INTERNATIONAL) LTD v TECHTREK INDIA LTD [2020] EWHC 539 (Ch)
Where the maker of a statement is relying on evidence provided by a witness who is an officer of, or employed by, an incorporated body, the requirements of paragraph 18 of Practice Direction 32 to provide the source of evidence is not complied with merely by saying that the source is the entity or officers of the entity. If the source of evidence is a person, as opposed the source being documents, the person or persons must be identified and named. A failure to identify the source in a manner that complies with paragraph 18.2 will mean the court has to consider whether to place any weight on the evidence, especially where it touches on a central issue [20]. On the facts, evidence that the third defendant had signed a guarantee and that the form of the guarantee had been agreed by the principal debtor was inadequate and the bank’s application for summary judgement was refused.
27/6/14
RENAISSANCE CAPITAL LTD v AFRICAN MINERALS LTD [2014] EWHC 2004 (Comm)
Witness statements should relate concisely what the witness did or heard or observed. The trend to produce over lengthy and argumentative witness statements must stop. It is wasteful of costs and the court’s valuable time [202].
4/6/14
SCARLETT v GRACE [2014] EWHC 2307 (QB)
Considers principles applicable to the use of witness summaries under CPR 32.9 and the need to demonstrate inability to obtain a witness statement.
16/4/14
CHARTWELL ESTATE AGENTS LTD v FERGIES PROPERTIES SA [2014] EWCA Civ 506
The lower court had been entitled to grant the claimant relief from sanction for failing to serve witness statements in time. Both parties had been in default and refusal of relief would have effectively ended the claim.
11/4/14
CANNING v NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD [2014] EWHC (QB)
An application to rely on a supplementary witness statement after the deadline for exchange of witness statements required relief from sanction and was refused because it was made so late, changed the applicant’s case and would have caused delay.
27/3/14
MITCHELL v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD [2014] EWHC 879 (QB)
Applications for non-party disclosure of witness statements obtained by the police were refused as the witnesses, who has objected to disclosure on grounds of confidentiality were not represented and their objections had not been properly put in evidence.
20/1/14
M A LLOYD & SONS LTD v PPC INTERNATIONAL LTD [2014] EWHC 41 (QB)
Delay in failing to comply with an order for service of witness statements on a particular issue had been substantial and there had been no good reason for it. The claimant was debarred from producing evidence on that issue at trial.
1/5/13
J D WETHERSPOON PLC v HARRIS [2013] EWHC 1088 (Ch)
Witness statements should not recite events of which the witness has no direct knowledge nor should they provide a commentary on documents in a trial bundle [39].
11/4/13
STOBART GROUP LTD v ELLIOTT [2013] EWHC 797 (QB)
Considers when it may be appropriate to give permission to bring proceedings to commit for contempt in respect of allegedly false statements in a document supported by a statement of truth, especially where the statements were made in support of a without notice application.
28/2/13
BERRY PILING SYSTEMS LTD v SHEER PROJECTS LTD [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC)
It can be contempt of court for a witness to make a statement, supported by a statement of truth, recklessly in the sense of saying something which they had no idea was true. Optimism or carelessness, particularly in statements involving value judgments, are not enough. In considering whether to allow committal proceedings, the court will consider whether there is a strong prima facie case, the public interest, and whether the proceedings are proportionate. On the facts a false statement that a company was solvent had been corrected and committal proceedings would be disproportionate as the case had involved only £24,000.
22/1/13
CUMMINGS v THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2012] EWHC 48 (QB)
Costs of preparing a witness statement containing irrelevant evidence disallowed.
© Copyright 2014 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer