Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Evidence - From: 1999 To: 1999

This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
McCauley v Vine [1999] 1 WLR 1977
1999

Sir Patrick Russell
Evidence
Sir Patrick Russell considered the effect of section 11 of the 1968 Act, saying: "The closing words of that section "unless the contrary is proved" provides in my judgment, the clearest possible mandate to a defendant in a road traffic accident case to attack his earlier conviction provided he has some good force for so doing and can discharge the burden of proof to a civil standard that the section imposes upon him."
Civil Evidence Act 1968 11(2)
1 Citers


 
Regina v Musquera [1999] Crim LR 857
1999
CACD
Potter LJ
Evidence
The court observed that, while the decision in DPP v P had eliminated the necessity to identify a striking similarity, it was still necessary to invoke some identifiable common feature or features constituting a significant connection and going beyond mere propensity or coincidence. "It is certainly the case that when the issue is …. that a particular witness is lying, a lesser degree of similarity between the two allegations is likely to suffice to make them cross-admissible than when the issue is, for example, the identity of the defendant….." but "… it is still necessary to invoke some common identifiable feature or features constituting a significant connection and going beyond mere propensity of co-incidence."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Clonard Developments Limited v Humberts (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 553
13 Jan 1999
CA

Evidence
The application to admit evidence was refused. "We would be required to draw inferences from this evidence without the benefit of it having been considered by the experts on either side as to what the significance of the sale figure is. In those circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that it would not have had an important influence on the outcome of the issue before the learned judge and we do not think that it is of such critical importance that we should admit it. If we were to admit it, we do not consider it is appropriate for this court to try and evaluate its significance."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court ex parte Caroline Asapokhai ex parte Patricia Mason and ex parte Adesoji Ibiloye [1999] EWHC Admin 147
16 Feb 1999
Admn

Magistrates, Evidence, Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Unilever Plc v The Procter and Gamble Company; PatC 24-Feb-1999 - Times, 18 March 1999; [1999] EWHC Patents 250; [1999] FSR 849

 
 Dora v Semper; CA 15-Mar-1999 - 15 March 1999 (unreported)
 
Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Kebilene etc Times, 31 March 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 277; [1999] 3 WLR 175
30 Mar 1999
Admn
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Laws LJ, Sullivan J
Evidence, Human Rights, Constitutional
The applicants sought, by means of the Human Rights Act to challenge the way in which the decision had been made that they should be prosecuted under the 1989 Act, arguing that section 6(2) was inconsistent with the new Act. Held: The Act contravened the Convention insofar as it made evidential presumptions which were incompatible with the presumption of innocence. An English court is able to apply the Convention anticipating the coming into force of the Act in the UK.
Lord Bingham CJ stated: "Statements by ministers concerning the future conduct of themselves and their officials can found no legitimate expectation concerning the future decisions of the Director since he, like the law officers, acts wholly independently of the executive when making decisions on the conduct of criminal proceedings. It is his public duty and responsibility to exercise his own independent judgement. He cannot be bound by any statement made on behalf of the executive, and no reasonable person alert to his constitutional role could expect him to be so bound."
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 6(2) - European Convention on Human Rights - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Grobbelaar v Sun Newspapers Ltd Times, 12 August 1999
9 Jul 1999
CA
Potter LJ
Defamation, Evidence
With the new Civil Procedure Rules, it was no longer correct that a court could not exclude evidence which was relevant, on the grounds that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court now has full power and discretion to make such orders. "The just resolution of this case depends on the jury keeping their focus on match-fixing and not being distracted by matters that are insufficiently probative, given their potential for prejudice."
Civil Procedure Rules 32
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust and Others v Troup Bywaters and Anders (A Firm) [1999] EWHC Technology 273
12 Nov 1999
TCC
His Honour Judge John Toulmin Cmg Qc
Contract, Professional Negligence, Evidence
Contract - professional negligence - duty of care - general consulting engineers - advice to NHS trust whether negligent - expert evidence - admissibility of evidence in the same profession with specialist professional expertise.
[ Bailii ]
 
Field and Another v Leeds City Council Times, 18 January 2000; Gazette, 03 February 2000; (2000) 17 EG 165; [1999] EWCA Civ 3013; [1999] CPLR 833
8 Dec 1999
CA
Lord Woolf MR, Waller LJ, May LJ
Litigation Practice, Housing, Evidence
The parties were involved in a dispute as to repairs on a tenanted property. The court had ordered an independent surveyor's report. The claimant objected to the use by the defendant of an employee for this purpose, and was involved in their claims investigation department. Held: The judge's decision to exclude the evidence at an interim hearing when the impartiality had not been demonstrated. However, the court could not properly have rejected evidence from such a party without seeing a report prepared by him. He would otherwise have been qualified to report. The fact that a proposed epert witness was an employee of a party need not always debar him from acting. He needed to demonstrate that he was properly qualified, and that he understood that he first duty was to the court and not to his employer or the party calling him.
Waller LJ said: "The question whether someone should be able to give expert evidence should depend on whether, (i) it can be demonstrated whether that person has relevant expertise in an area in issue in the case; and (ii) that it can be demonstrated that he or she is aware of their primary duty to the court if they give expert evidence. "
Environmental Protection Act 1990 82
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Vekaplast Windows (C I ) Limited v Barry Kenneth Jehan and Another (Guernsey) [1999] UKPC 53
13 Dec 1999
PC
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Nolan, Lord Clyde, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Contract, Evidence
PC Guernsey (Appeal No.65 of 1997) The claimant company asserted that cheques drawn by a director in favour of his own company were for services which had not been delivered. He complained that a tape record of part of the a conversation with the defendant had not been admitted, and that three explanations of the additional charges were inconsistent. Held: He had agreed to the approach taken by the court on the admission of the transcript, and the explanations of the additional sums charged were not explanations for the same sums, and were not therefore inconsistent. Appeal dismissed.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.