Afzal v UK Insurance Ltd [2023] EWHC 1730 (KB) (09 June 2023)

Afzal v UK Insurance Ltd [2023] EWHC 1730 (KB) (09 June 2023)

The judge at first instance erred in construing 'own language' in CPR 32, PD 18.1 as requiring the witness statement to be in the claimant's first language (Urdu), rather than any language in which the claimant is sufficiently fluent (English). The claimant was not bound by the concession made at first instance, and the refusal to admit the English witness statement or grant an adjournment was a flawed exercise of discretion. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for trial.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1730 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Raja Saeed Afzal; Respondent/defendant: UK Insurance Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury) / Appeal From County Court Decision Refusing Permission to Adduce Evidence at Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Witness Statements, Language of Evidence, Practice Direction 32, Case Management Discretion, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Witness Statements Language of Evidence Practice Direction 32 Case Management Discretion Appeal Procedure

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raja Saeed Afzal

Appellant/claimant

UK Insurance Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury) / Appeal From County Court Decision Refusing Permission to Adduce Evidence at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'own language' in CPR 32, PD 18.1 requires a witness statement to be in a witness's first language or any language in which they are sufficiently fluent
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was bound by a concession made at first instance regarding his 'own language'
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission to adduce the English witness statement

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance erred in construing 'own language' in CPR 32, PD 18.1 as requiring the witness statement to be in the claimant's first language (Urdu), rather than any language in which the claimant is sufficiently fluent (English). The claimant was not bound by the concession made at first instance, and the refusal to admit the English witness statement or grant an adjournment was a flawed exercise of discretion. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The claimant is permitted to adduce his English witness statement at trial.