Desmond v Bower [2009] EWCA Civ 667 (07 July 2009)

Desmond v Bower [2009] EWCA Civ 667 (07 July 2009)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by excluding the possibility of admitting similar fact evidence relating to subsequent events (the Pentagon affair) and by refusing permission to issue the witness summons for Jafar Omid. The evidence was potentially relevant and probative of the pleaded issues, and its admissibility should be determined by the trial judge at trial, not excluded at the interlocutory stage. The appeal was allowed and permission to issue the witness summons was granted.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 667
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Richard Desmond; Defendant / Appellant: Tom Bower
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal (civil Division) / Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Permission to Issue Witness Summons
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Similar Fact Evidence, Witness Summons, Case Management, Justification in Libel, Admissibility of Evidence
Defamation Civil Procedure Similar Fact Evidence Witness Summons Case Management Justification in Libel Admissibility of Evidence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Desmond

Claimant / Respondent

Tom Bower

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal (civil Division) / Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Permission to Issue Witness Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to issue a witness summons for Jafar Omid less than seven days before trial
  2. 2 Whether similar fact evidence relating to subsequent events (the Pentagon affair) is admissible in justification of the alleged libel
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in law in refusing the application based on relevance and case management

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by excluding the possibility of admitting similar fact evidence relating to subsequent events (the Pentagon affair) and by refusing permission to issue the witness summons for Jafar Omid. The evidence was potentially relevant and probative of the pleaded issues, and its admissibility should be determined by the trial judge at trial, not excluded at the interlocutory stage. The appeal was allowed and permission to issue the witness summons was granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission granted to issue witness summons for Jafar Omid and his documents