Jaffray v Society of Lloyd's
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 2000 |
| Date | 09 June 2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Cresswell
Evidence - party serving witness statement - court cannot order him to call witness
Where a party, after serving a statement of his witness on the opposing party, in accordance with pre-trial directions, decided not to call that witness to give evidence, the court had no power to order the party to call his witness to give evidence in court.
However, it was open to any party in the litigation to put in that statement as hearsay evidence under rule 35.5(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which had reversed Order 38, rule 2A(6) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, under which no other party could put the evidence in at trial.
Mr Justice Cresswell so ruled in the Queen's Bench Division when refusing an application by Lloyd's names seeking an order against the Society of Lloyd's to call several witnesses, whose witness statements had been served pursuant to pre-trial directions, to give evidence in court at the trial in the action against Lloyd's for misrepresentation.
Mr Charles Aldous, QC, Mr Richard Jacobs, QC, Mr David Foxton and Mr Stephen Houseman for Lloyd's; Sir William Jaffray in person; Mr Simon Goldblatt, QC and Mr Vincent Nelson for privately funded members of the United Names Organisation; Mr Patrick Talbot, QC, Mr David Drake, Mr David Craig and Mr Giles Richardson for legally aided members of the United Names Organisation.
MR JUSTICE CRESSWELL said that the question was whether the court might require evidence to be adduced which the party was not minded to call.
It was clear from rule 32.2 that rule 32.1 was not merely an exclusionary rule. Paragraph 32.1.1 described rule 32.1 as a general power which was a far reaching one. Where a party decided not to call a witness, whose witness statement had been served, to give oral evidence at trial, prompt notice of that decision should be given to all other parties.
The party should make plain when he gave that notice whether he proposed to put, or to seek to put the witness statement in as hearsay evidence. If he did not put the witness statement in as hearsay evidence, rule 32.5(5) allowed any other party to put it in as hearsay evidence.
The names did not wish to put the witness statements in question in as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaffray v Society of Lloyd's
...set out in the letter was so serious that, if he had known of the letter at the time he “would have been unable to plead innocence in Jaffray”. Mr Merrett had not in fact said that in any of the 299 pages of evidence that he had filed in this application, but we were told that that was his ......
-
Barbara Mary Hewson v Bar Standards Board
...Rep. 38; Feakins v. DEFRA [2006] EWCA Civ 699, [2006] N.P.C. 66; Jaffray v. Society of Lloyds (Practice Note) [2007] EWCA Civ 586, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 75; and Bassi v. Anas [2007] EWCA Civ 16 In Re. Uddin (a child) [2005] EWCA Civ 52, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2398, Butler-Sloss P said, at [18], th......
-
GE Commercial Finance Ltd v Gee
...In two recent cases in the Court of Appeal, the tort has been expressed in terms that do not include Lord Herschell's second case: Society of Lloyd's v Jaffray [2002] EWCA Civ 1101 para 49, 62 (although that paragraph also includes the full citation from Lord Herschell), 71; Twinsectra v Y......
-
Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima
...contested issues of fact, particularly where there are allegations of fraud. The judge considered that this was demonstrated by Jaffray v Society of Lloyd's [2008] 1 WLR 75 and by Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No. 8) [2001] 1 WLR 429, where the House of Lords dismissed a petitio......