Curtiss & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc [2022] EWHC 1749 (TCC) (01 June 2022)

Curtiss & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc [2022] EWHC 1749 (TCC) (01 June 2022)

Certain witness statements and parts thereof served by the claimants failed to comply with Practice Direction 57AC by including inadmissible opinion, commentary, or evidence not within the witness's personal knowledge; accordingly, the court struck out those statements or parts, but declined to strike out others where the breach was not substantial or could be addressed at trial. The application as a whole was disproportionate and not justified, but limited sanctions were imposed for clear breaches.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1749 (TCC)
Parties
Claimants: Angela Denise Curtiss and others; First Defendant: Zurich Insurance PLC; Second Defendant: East West Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under CPR Practice Direction 57 AC / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application for Strike Out of Witness Statements
Outcome
Application granted in part; certain witness statements and parts struck out; permission for further statement from Mr Sanders; remainder of application refused.
Legal Topics
Witness Statements, Practice Direction 57 AC, Case Management, Admissibility of Evidence
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Property Law Witness Statements Practice Direction 57 AC Case Management 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Denise Curtiss and others

Claimants

Zurich Insurance PLC

First Defendant

East West Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under CPR Practice Direction 57 AC / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application for Strike Out of Witness Statements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain witness statements and parts thereof served by the claimants comply with CPR Practice Direction 57AC and the Statement of Best Practice; Whether sanctions should be imposed for non-compliance with the Practice Direction; Whether the application to strike out is proportionate and justified

Ratio Decidendi

Certain witness statements and parts thereof served by the claimants failed to comply with Practice Direction 57AC by including inadmissible opinion, commentary, or evidence not within the witness's personal knowledge; accordingly, the court struck out those statements or parts, but declined to strike out others where the breach was not substantial or could be addressed at trial. The application as a whole was disproportionate and not justified, but limited sanctions were imposed for clear breaches.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; certain witness statements and parts struck out; permission for further statement from Mr Sanders; remainder of application refused.

Orders

  • Strike out the trial witness statements of Miss Nerys Sanders and Ms Helen Hutchison.
  • Strike out the witness statements of Mr Elson and Mr Ford.