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: 2004 To: 2004
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Jameel, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL; QBD 20-Jan-2004 - [2004] EWHC 37 (QB); [2004] EMLR 11
Regina v H; Regina v C; HL 5-Feb-2004 - [2004] UKHL 3; Times, 06 February 2004; Gazette, 26 February 2004; [2004] 2 AC 134; [2004] 2 WLR 335; [2004] HRLR 20; [2004] 2 Cr App R 10; [2004] 1 All ER 1269; [2004] 16 BHRC 332
Marlwood Commercial Incorporated, Viktor Kozeny, Charles Towers-Clark, Oily Rock Group Limited, Minaret Group Limited and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Omega Group Holdings Limited and Others, Viktor Kozeny, Charles Towers-Clark, [2004] EWHC 189 (Comm
9 Feb 2004
ComC
Mr Justice Moore-Bick
Legal Professions, Evidence
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Howe) v South Durham Magistrates Court Times, 26 February 2004; [2004] EWHC 362
13 Feb 2004
QBD
Rose LJ, Savid Clarke J
Legal Professions, Evidence
The defendant was convicted of driving whilst disqualified. He had put the prosecution to proof of the fact that it was he who had been prosecuted. The prosecution called his solicitor to give evidence that it was his client who had been banned on the earlier occasion. Held: The solicitor was being asked not about private matters but about matters which had occurred in open court. Accordingly no question of privilege arose, and the approach was proper.
1 Cites
1 Citers
United States of America v Philip Morris Inc and Others and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd [2004] EWCA (Civ) 330; Times, 16 April 2004
23 Mar 2004
CA
Mr Justice Brooke Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Scott Baker
Litigation Practice, Legal Professions, Evidence
The defendants appealed orders requiring them to produce evidence for use in the courts in the US. Held: It was the pleasure and duty of British courts to respond positively to a letter of request. Public interest required that a court should have before it all the evidence it required to fulfil its task. Unless it was clear that the majority of questions asked could be resisted on the grounds of legal professional privilege, the rquest should be complied with.
Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions) Act 1975
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Dendron Gmbh and others v Regents of University of California and Another; PatC 23-Mar-2004 - [2004] EWHC 589 (Pat); Times, 24 May 2004
Regina v Edwards, Denton and Jackson Hendley Crowley; Attorney General's Reference (No. 1 of 2004); CACD 29-Apr-2004 - [2004] EWCA Crim 1025; Times, 30 April 2004; Gazette, 20 May 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 2111; [2004] 2 Cr App R(S) 27
Kerry Cox v Lawrence Jones [2004] EWHC 1006 (Ch)
6 May 2004
ChD
Mann, The Honourable Mr Justice Mann
Family, Evidence, Media, Civil Procedure Rules
In the course of the hearing some of the claimant's allegations were dropped. Newspapers having taken an interest in the case sought disclosure of the full document. Held: The parts of the statements not relied upon included allegations against third parties who would have no opportunity of reply, and which allegations were not pursued. The names would be deleted. The court made available the documents required under 5.4 but not further.
Civil Procedure Rules 5.4 32.13
[ Bailii ]
In re LU (A Child); In re LB (A Child) (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof); re U (A Child) (Department for Education and Skills intervening) [2004] EWCA Civ 567; Times, 27 May 2004; Gazette, 03 June 2004; [2005] Fam 134; [2004] Fam Law 565; [2004] 2 FCR 257; [2004] 3 WLR 753; [2004] 2 FLR 263
14 May 2004
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Lord Justice Thorpe, And Lord Justice Mantell
Children, Evidence
In each case, the other parent appealed care orders where she had been found to have injured her children. In each case the sole evidence was the injury to the child's health and expert medical evidence. The cases were referred following the Cannings case. Held: The appeals failed. It was wrong to diminish the difference in standards of proof between civil and criminal cases. "The standard of proof to be applied in Children Act cases is the balance of probabilities and the approach to these difficult cases was laid down by Lord Nicholls in his speech in re H. "There were significant differences between care and criminal cases: more evidence would be admitted, and the proceedings were inquisitorial rather than adversarial. "it by no means follows that an acquittal on a criminal charge or a successful appeal would lead to the absolution of the parent or carer in family or civil proceedings."
The court urged caution on those asked to find abuse: "(i) The cause of an injury or an episode that cannot be explained scientifically remains equivocal;
(ii) Recurrence is not in itself probative;
(iii) Particular caution is necessary in any case where the medical experts disagree, one opinion declining to exclude a reasonable possibility of natural cause;
(iv) The court must always be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice;
(v) The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today's medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research will throw light into corners that are at present dark."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Couwenbergh v Valkova; CA 27-May-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 676
Solon South West Housing Association Limited v Lisa James Eran James [2004] EWCA Civ 1847
20 Dec 2004
CA
Housing, Evidence
Hearsay evidence is available on an application for an ASBO or the trial of a possession action.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]