* A party who was wished to object to documents being used at trial should serve the appropriate notices under the Civil Procedure Rules.
* The failure of a party to call a key witness in its own defence could lead to adverse inferences being drawn against that party.
* Oral evidence remains important in commercial cases. The fact that documents exist does not mean that a witness should not be called; the absence of a witness could lead to little weight being given to the documents.
* The fact that a witness no longer works for a party is not, in itself, a good reason for not calling a witness.”
There is an interesting discussion of the role of the “absent witness” in the judgment today of Mr Justice Kerr in O’Hare -v-Coutts & Co  EWHC 2224 (QB). There are dangers in a party not calling someone who is clearly a key witness in a case. The presence of relevant documents is not a panacea.
“The “general rule” in CPR rule 32.2(1)(a) remains that “any fact which needs to be proved by the evidence of witnesses is to be proved … at trial, by their oral evidence given in public”. The approach commended by Leggatt J in Gestmin is very useful, not least in this case, but does not licence failure to prove the correctness of a disputed documentary record”
- A party who was wished to object to documents being used at trial should serve the appropriate notices under the Civil Procedure Rules.
- The failure of a…
View original post 4,691 more words