Late witness statements

20 June 2014

Issue: 7611 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court

CPR 32.10 says that a witness may not be called without the court’s permission if their statement has been served late. If permission is sought, should it be by way of an application for relief from sanction or for an extension of time for service and would the criteria for determination in any way differ?

If the application is made before the deadline, it should be for an extension. After that a CPR 3.9 application for relief from sanction is required. Plainly the criteria differ, as does the case law.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML

The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week

NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity

Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted

NLJ this week: A prince no more?

Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke

NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk

Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'

NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law

In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains

Error message

Late witness statements

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith