New Media Distribution Company Sezc Ltd v Kagalovsky

New Media Distribution Company Sezc Ltd v Kagalovsky

The court held that the impugned paragraphs and attached statements constituted expert opinion evidence on foreign law, which the defendant as a factual witness was not competent to give. Adducing such evidence without the court's permission circumvented the procedural safeguards for expert evidence under CPR 35. The evidence was therefore inadmissible and excluded.

Parties
Claimant: New Media Distribution Company SEZC Limited; Defendant: Konstantin Grigoryevich Kagalovsky
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (insolvency/companies) / Interlocutory Application (evidentiary Exclusion)
Outcome
Application granted; evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Witness Competence, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Compliance
Civil Procedure Evidence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Witness Competence Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Compliance

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Media Distribution Company SEZC Limited

Claimant

Konstantin Grigoryevich Kagalovsky

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (insolvency/companies) / Interlocutory Application (evidentiary Exclusion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 48-50 of the defendant's fourth witness statement and the attached statements of Mr Rievman and Professor Butler are admissible as evidence
  2. 2 Whether a factual witness statement can be used as a gateway to adduce expert evidence without the court's permission

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the impugned paragraphs and attached statements constituted expert opinion evidence on foreign law, which the defendant as a factual witness was not competent to give. Adducing such evidence without the court's permission circumvented the procedural safeguards for expert evidence under CPR 35. The evidence was therefore inadmissible and excluded.

Court Disposition

Application granted; evidence excluded

Orders

  • Paragraphs 48-50 of the defendant's fourth witness statement and the attached statements of Mr Rievman and Professor Butler are excluded from the evidence.