Vainker & Anor v Marbank Construction Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 2785 (TCC) (28 July 2022)

Vainker & Anor v Marbank Construction Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 2785 (TCC) (28 July 2022)

It is disproportionate and inefficient to strike out or require wholesale amendment of witness statements for alleged non-compliance with Practice Direction 57AC shortly before trial; such matters are best left to the trial judge to determine weight and admissibility, except in the case of Mr Haffenden's statement, where an unless order is appropriate due to its wholly documentary commentary nature.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2785 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Vainker & Anor; First Defendant: Marbank Construction Limited; Second Defendant: Mercer & Miller (A Firm); Third Defendant: SCD Architects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application to strike out or require amendment of witness statements largely refused except for an unless order regarding Mr Haffenden's statement; costs orders made as detailed.
Legal Topics
Practice Direction 57 AC, Witness Statements, Evidence Admissibility, Case Management, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Construction Law Practice Direction 57 AC Witness Statements Evidence Admissibility Case Management Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vainker & Anor

Claimant

Marbank Construction Limited

First Defendant

Mercer & Miller (A Firm)

Second Defendant

SCD Architects Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to strike out or require amendment of non-compliant witness statements under Practice Direction 57AC
  2. 2 Appropriate timing and proportionality of such applications
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of evidence containing opinion, commentary, or matters outside personal knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

It is disproportionate and inefficient to strike out or require wholesale amendment of witness statements for alleged non-compliance with Practice Direction 57AC shortly before trial; such matters are best left to the trial judge to determine weight and admissibility, except in the case of Mr Haffenden's statement, where an unless order is appropriate due to its wholly documentary commentary nature.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out or require amendment of witness statements largely refused except for an unless order regarding Mr Haffenden's statement; costs orders made as detailed.

Orders

  • Unless order made in respect of Mr Haffenden's statement requiring compliance with Practice Direction 57AC.
  • Claimants to pay first and third defendants' costs of and occasioned by the amendments and the application to file and serve revised witness statements.