Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3004 (QB) (24 November 2016)

Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3004 (QB) (24 November 2016)

There is no entitlement for the Defendant to cross-examine translators who have filed verifying affidavits under CPR 32 PD 23.2. The court retains discretion to order attendance for cross-examination, but in this case, exercising that discretion in light of the overriding objective, it is neither just nor...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3004
Parties
Claimants: Eloise Mukami Kimathi & Others; Defendant: The Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Cross Examination of Translators, Translation of Evidence, Affidavit Requirements, Case Management, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Cross Examination of Translators Translation of Evidence Affidavit Requirements Case Management Overriding Objective

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eloise Mukami Kimathi & Others

Claimants

The Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is entitled to cross-examine translators who verified translations of witness statements under CPR 32 PD 23.2
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to require translators to attend for cross-examination in light of the overriding objective

Ratio Decidendi

There is no entitlement for the Defendant to cross-examine translators who have filed verifying affidavits under CPR 32 PD 23.2. The court retains discretion to order attendance for cross-examination, but in this case, exercising that discretion in light of the overriding objective, it is neither just nor proportionate to require the translators to attend. The Defendant's concerns can be addressed by other means, and cross-examination would not materially assist the court or justify the expenditure of time and cost.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Defendant's application to require translators to attend for cross-examination is refused.