14 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read – 34 of 99 Insights
The recent case of Cumbria Zoo Company Limited v The Zoo Investment Company Limited provides further guidance on the court's approach to non-compliant witness statements in the Business and Property Courts under the not-so-new Practice Direction 57AC (the PD) which we have previously written about here.
This decision concerned a witness statement which was found to be "gross[ly] non-compliant" with the PD, "littered" with comments of belief based on unattributed hearsay, as well as argument and expressions of belief.
Although the Judge reiterated previous cautions from the Court about parties needing to take a proportionate approach to non-compliance given the "substantial and flagrant" breaches of the PD, he noted that had this issue come before the Court at the earlier pre-trial review stage of proceedings, the statement would have been struck out and the Court would have considered whether to allow a replacement compliant statement.
The Judge also warned that non-compliance with the PD risked undermining the credibility of the witness and the case of the party calling the witness. Further, he noted the costs consequences for failing to comply with the PD –if a party is on the receiving end of a favourable costs order, there is little prospect of recovering the costs of the preparation of a grossly non-compliant witness statement.
This case suggests to us that the Court's patience with parties failing to comply with the PD is wearing thin. Previously the Court has been reluctant to strike out non-compliant witness statements. However, the Judge was clear that there was a significant prospect that the Defendant would have been refused permission to rely on the offending statement had this matter been raised in advance of trial.
Parties should therefore take heed that the Court will use the full range of sanctions at its disposal when considering non-compliant witness statements, and failure to follow the rules could well lead to a party being prohibited from relying on such evidence. For those on the receiving end of an offending witness statement from your opponent, be sure to raise this issue with the Court at the earliest opportunity, to ensure the Court has time to put things right, and to avoid wasting time at trial dealing with such matters.
6 December 2024
14 November 2024
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
15 October 2024
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
14 December 2023
13 December 2023
23 October 2023
by Multiple authors
17 October 2023
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
21 July 2023
10 July 2023
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
8 March 2023
2 March 2023
14 February 2023
13 February 2023
8 February 2023
19 January 2023
3 October 2022
22 September 2022
by Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
25 July 2022
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
29 July 2022
17 June 2022
13 June 2022
26 May 2022
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
4 April 2022
5 April 2022
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
21 September 2021
by Multiple authors
13 September 2021
6 September 2021
2 August 2021
21 July 2021
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
26 May 2021
5 May 2021
21 April 2021
31 March 2021
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
24 February 2021
20 January 2021
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
23 November 2020
16 October 2020
23 September 2020
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
15 April 2020
27 April 2020
by Multiple authors
21 April 2020
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
26 February 2020
21 February 2020
2 June 2020
16 June 2020
9 July 2020
21 July 2020
3 December 2021
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
8 October 2021
10 January 2022
20 January 2022
22 March 2022
7 April 2022
by Tim Strong and Kate Hamblin
by Tim Strong and Kate Hamblin