First Subsea Ltd v Balltec Ltd [2013] EWHC 1033 (Pat) (15 March 2013)

First Subsea Ltd v Balltec Ltd [2013] EWHC 1033 (Pat) (15 March 2013)

The court admitted Mr Lang's hearsay evidence, granting an extension for service of the Civil Evidence Act notice, as the evidence was relevant and the late application did not warrant exclusion. The court also permitted the defendants' late amendment to plead a 'clean hands' defence, as the amendment arose from late disclosure, was legally coherent, and did not cause unfairness to the claimant.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1033 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: First Subsea Ltd; Defendant: Balltec Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (patents/commercial) / Interlocutory Applications During Trial
Outcome
Both applications granted
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Civil Evidence Act 1995, Practice Direction 32, Disclosure, Pleading Amendments, Clean Hands Doctrine, Obligation of Confidence
Civil Procedure Evidence Equity Hearsay Evidence Civil Evidence Act 1995 Practice Direction 32 Disclosure Pleading Amendments +2 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Subsea Ltd

Claimant

Balltec Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (patents/commercial) / Interlocutory Applications During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Civil Evidence Act notice is required for hearsay evidence in an agreed bundle under PD 32.27.2
  2. 2 Whether the court can exclude hearsay evidence admitted late
  3. 3 Whether the defendants should be permitted to amend their pleadings to introduce a 'clean hands' defence based on late disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court admitted Mr Lang's hearsay evidence, granting an extension for service of the Civil Evidence Act notice, as the evidence was relevant and the late application did not warrant exclusion. The court also permitted the defendants' late amendment to plead a 'clean hands' defence, as the amendment arose from late disclosure, was legally coherent, and did not cause unfairness to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Both applications granted

Orders

  • Mr Lang's evidence admitted with weight to be determined at trial's conclusion
  • Defendants permitted to amend their pleadings to introduce the 'clean hands' defence