Blog
Kingsley Napley’s Medical Negligence Team ‘walks together’ with the Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity
Sharon Burkill
The headlines this week around former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner are a reminder of the importance of taking the right advice from appropriate professionals and the potential consequences when such advice is called into question.
Bribery - The Claimant in the behemoth case that is Public Institution for Social Security v Al-Wazzan was refused permission to amend its case mid-trial against the 15th to 19th Defendants. This is because such an amendment would have required further expert evidence on complex issues of Swiss law, the amendment was made late, and the 15th to 19th Defendants would be prejudiced by the late amendment. The Claimant was given permission to amend as against the 41st Defendant because the amendment was only minor and the 41st Defendant could easily understand the case against it. The Court also imposed certain restrictions on the cross examination of one of the 15th to 19th Defendants’ witnesses based on the way the case had been pleaded, limiting questioning about the dishonesty of various parties and the falsity of certain documents.
Judicial commentary shows that judges are exceedingly aware of the unreliability of witnesses’ memory when considering evidence at trial. While judges may take differing views as to the reliance that ought to be placed on oral evidence as compared to contemporaneous documents, procedural safeguards are now in place to help strengthen the reliability of witness evidence, in CPR Practice Direction 57AC - Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts (“PD 57AC”).
We have previously written about the potential death of the shareholder principle in our previous blogs. The recent Privy Council decision in Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd & Ors No 2 confirms what we suspected; the shareholder principle no longer exists in England & Wales.
We all know that arbitration and litigation are governed by different rules which dictate the way disputes are dealt with and the way that hearings proceed. One perhaps surprising difference, however, is the approach to oral evidence.
Sharon Burkill
Natalie Cohen
Caroline Sheldon
Legal Notices | Privacy Notice | Fraud Warning | Modern Slavery Statement | Complaints | Website Terms | Cookie Policy | Accessibility | Site Map
© 2025 Kingsley Napley LLP. All rights reserved. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number 500046.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility