‘The general rule in adversarial proceedings, as between the parties, is that one party should not be entitled to impugn the evidence of another party’s witness if he has not asked appropriate questions enabling the witness to deal with the criticisms that are being made. This general rule is stated in Phipson on Evidence 15th Ed at para 11-26 in the following terms: ‘As a rule a party should put to each of his opponent’s witnesses in turn so much of his own case as concerns that particular witness, or in which he had a share, eg if the witness has deposed a conversation, the opposing counsel should put to the witnesses any significant differences from his own case. If he asks no questions he will generally be taken to accept the witness’s account and will not be permitted to attack it in his final speech … Failure to cross-examine will not, however, always amount to acceptance of the witness’s testimony, if for example the witness has had notice to the contrary beforehand, or the story itself is of an incredible or romancing character’.’
Judges:
Latham LJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 1396
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd CA 14-Sep-2005
The club regulated greyhound racing. The claimant had complained that its disciplinary proceedings had been conducted unfairly. He said that a panel member had an interest as veterinary surgeon in the proceedings at the stadium at which the alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.230098
