14 février 2023
Disputes Quick Read – 39 de 105 Publications
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.
Andrew Howell and Natalia Faekova unpack an extraordinary case. A Mexican billionaire's strong fraud claim. Former Israeli intelligence operatives hired to target the defendant's solicitor. Secret recordings over wine and dinner. A judge who called it 'anathema to civil litigation' but may have been 'too lenient'.
19 novembre 2025
During an LSLA lecture on transparency and open justice, Mrs Justice Cockerill, recently appointed as Deputy Head of Civil Justice, outlined a pilot practice direction (PD) that will place select court documents squarely in the public domain via a new, public-facing side of the electronic court file (CE-File).
21 octobre 2025
11 juin 2025
30 janvier 2025
6 décembre 2024
14 novembre 2024
14 novembre 2024
15 octobre 2024
14 décembre 2023
13 décembre 2023
17 octobre 2023
4 août 2023
21 juillet 2023
10 juillet 2023
1 juin 2023
20 avril 2023
8 mars 2023
14 février 2023
13 février 2023
8 février 2023
19 janvier 2023
3 octobre 2022
22 septembre 2022
9 août 2022
25 juillet 2022
6 juillet 2022
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 juillet 2022
27 juillet 2022
29 juillet 2022
17 juin 2022
13 juin 2022
26 mai 2022
31 mai 2022
4 avril 2022
5 avril 2022
31 mars 2022
21 septembre 2021
13 septembre 2021
6 septembre 2021
2 août 2021
21 juillet 2021
15 juillet 2021
5 mai 2021
21 avril 2021
31 mars 2021
26 février 2021
24 février 2021
20 janvier 2021
12 janvier 2021
23 novembre 2020
16 octobre 2020
23 septembre 2020
7 octobre 2020
15 avril 2020
27 avril 2020
21 avril 2020
2 juin 2020
16 juin 2020
9 juillet 2020
21 juillet 2020
3 décembre 2021
24 novembre 2021
8 octobre 2021
10 janvier 2022
20 janvier 2022
22 mars 2022
7 avril 2022