References: [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 120
Coram: Brandon J
The plaintiff shipowners claimed damages for detention following a collision with the defendants’ ship. There was an issue as to how long the ship repairs would have taken if they had been done at Bremen. The defendants adduced evidence on this point in the form of an exchange of letters.
Held: In considering what weight to give to the letters under section 6(3) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, the court identified relevant circumstances, and said also that it was necessary to take account of the fact that the evidence was unsworn and could not be tested by cross-examination. This was particularly important where the evidence related to hypothetical rather than actual facts.
Brandon J said: ‘My view is quite simply that matters of this importance, in a case of this kind, should be proved by oral evidence, and that letters obtained at the time and in the way that these were obtained should have little weight attached to them. I cannot think that the Civil Evidence Act 1968, was intended, in general, to change the long established system by which seriously disputed central issues in civil cases are tried on oral evidence, given on oath and capable of being tested by cross-examination, and to substitute for it a system of trial on unsworn documents brought into existence by parties to the proceeding post litem mortam, and I do not think the Act should be used, or rather abused, so as to produce such a result.’
Statutes: Civil Evidence Act 1968 6(3)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Welsh -v- Stokes and Another CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 796, [2008] 1 All ER 921, [2008] 1 WLR 1224, [2007] PIQR P27, (2007) 151 SJLB 1020, [2007] PIQR P27)
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
