Capital Funding One Ltd v Esqulant & Anor [2020] EWHC 981 (QB) (24 April 2020)

Capital Funding One Ltd v Esqulant & Anor [2020] EWHC 981 (QB) (24 April 2020)

The judge was correct to permit Mr Esqulant to give evidence as a witness for the Respondent under a genuine witness summons, not to advance his own case. There was no procedural ambush or collusion. The failure to serve a witness statement was due to a genuine belief it had been served. Any prejudice to the Appellant was minimal and did not justify excluding the evidence or ordering a retrial. The discretion was properly exercised and, if required, relief from sanctions would have been granted.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 981 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Capital Funding One Limited; First Defendant: Daniel John Esqulant; Second Defendant / Respondent: Alison Jayne Esqulant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Decision of District Judge Ransom Permitting Evidence at Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admission of Evidence, Relief From Sanctions, Beneficial Interest in Property, Witness Summons, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Property Law Admission of Evidence Relief From Sanctions Beneficial Interest in Property Witness Summons Case Management Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capital Funding One Limited

Claimant

Daniel John Esqulant

First Defendant

Alison Jayne Esqulant

Second Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Decision of District Judge Ransom Permitting Evidence at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in permitting Mr Esqulant to give evidence despite non-compliance with witness statement directions
  2. 2 Whether CPR 32.10 or CPR 34 governs the admission of such evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was a serious procedural irregularity causing injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to permit Mr Esqulant to give evidence as a witness for the Respondent under a genuine witness summons, not to advance his own case. There was no procedural ambush or collusion. The failure to serve a witness statement was due to a genuine belief it had been served. Any prejudice to the Appellant was minimal and did not justify excluding the evidence or ordering a retrial. The discretion was properly exercised and, if required, relief from sanctions would have been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.