Home
Blog Library
About Us
Our Publications
Webinar Library
Resources
Contact us
Menu

Change of address

As from the 1st October 2016, the Centre for Research into Civil Evidence (CRCE-UK) will be moving from 35 St. Paul’s Square, Birmingham, where we’ve been for the past four years, to new premises at 2, Blossom Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 0UD.  The email addresses and phone numbers remain the same.

With the start of the new legal and academic year, the Centre will be posting articles on predictive coding for lawyers involved in e-disclosure, data protection for transfers of personal data out of the EU/EEA, and a review of major 2016 cases on more traditional aspects of civil evidence, such as expert evidence, privilege and the use of contemporanoeus documents.…

Pyrrho and Predictive Coding: Where are the missing bits from the jigsaw?

The decision in Pyrrho Investments Limited v MWB Property Limited and others [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch) leaves one with the impression that the parties had reached consensus on all material matters. But what exactly had been agreed in this case and what exactly did the judge (Master Matthews) actually order?

The judge recited that a case management agreement had been reached, although the terms were not given in the judgment.…

Predictive coding is given approval by the High Court in a landmark decision on it use

Predictive coding (as a form of computer assisted legal review in the context of massive quantities of electronic documents) has been used in a number of e-disclosure cases in the United States and also in the Republic of Ireland (Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Quinn [2015] IEHC 175). However, until now, the England and Wales jurisdiction has had no decision expressly authorising its use.…

The Electronic Evidence and E-Disclosure Handbook

With over 600 pages, CRCE-UK launches a major new textbook on E-Disclosure dedicated to lawyers conducting heavy civil litigation cases in the UK.

Written by lawyer, Professor Peter Hibbert, for lawyers (with an Advisory Panel comprising some of the leading names in the field of e-disclosure/e-discovery in the UK and the US), The Electronic Evidence and E-Disclosure Handbook provides guidance for practitioners on how to project manage, seek, preserve, and analyse electronic documents for legal review and for compliance with CPR Part 31 in civil litigation cases in the England & Wales jurisdiction.…

Legal professional privilege (LPP): Recent case on loss of LPP under the “iniquity” exception

 

Summary: In London Borough of Brent v. Kane [2104] EWHC 4564 (Ch), the local authority was able to obtain an order against the defendants for disclosure of legal advice where it was alleged that the defendant had received property for the purpose of defrauding creditors, notwithstanding that the advice was privileged.…

Adverse inferences: Destruction of data by a non-party

In Ramsey v. Love [2015] EWHC 65 (Ch) the court had to consider whether adverse inferences could be drawn where documents had been destroyed by a person who was not a party to the proceedings and who had not been called as a witness at the trial.

Background

GR, a celebrity restauranteur, applied to the court for a declaration that he was not liable as guarantor to secure performance of covenants by a company tenant.…

Cross-border Litigation: When do US rules on preservation of evidence apply to non- US companies?

Summary: In The Lukenheimer Company v, Tyco Flow Control Pacific Party Ltd., a US District Court judge had to decide at what point did an Australian based company become subject to US common law duty to preserve evidence, in a US law suit in which the Australian company had consented to US jurisdiction.…

Disclosing witness statements to a non-party

Summary: In Barry v. Butler & Ors. [2015] EWHC 447 (QB), the court had to consider in what circumstances a party could disclose the opponent’s witness statements to a non-party prior to the trial.

Witness statements – restrictions on collateral use

Key Rule(s)/cases applied: CPR 32.12(1) provides that “a witness statement may be used only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is served.” Rule 32.12(2) provides that paragraph (1) does not apply if and to the extent that “(a) the witness gives consent in writing to some other use of it; (b) the court gives permission for some other use; or (c) the witness statement has been put in evidence at a hearing held in public”.…

Without prejudice rule: What constitutes an “opening shot”?

Privilege –without prejudice rule – opening shot –foreign proceedings

In Rochester Resources Limited v. Lebedev [2014] EWHC 2185 (Comm), Blair J. had to consider whether a draft Complaint prepared in relation to a potential law suit in New York and headed “Preliminary Draft For Settlement Purposes” was privileged in the context of proceedings issued in England.…

“Without prejudice”: effect of marking correspondence with these words

In Avonwick Holdings v. Webinvest Ltd. & Schlosberg [2014] EWHC 3322 (Ch) David Richards, J. had to determine the admissibility of a train of correspondence marked “without prejudice” by both parties.

Background

This was an application made by the claimant that correspondence between the parties and their solicitors should be admissible as evidence, notwithstanding that most of it was headed “without prejudice and subject to contract”.…

Search the site

Search the site

Subscribe via email

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Name
Email *
Featured Webinar

Featured Webinar

Latest Webinar

Audio, Chat & Mobile

This 60-minute webinar sponsored by Consilio explores the unique data types specifically created by financial services institutions...

COPYRIGHT
© 2016 Centre for Research into Civil Evidence (CRCE-UK). Unauthorised use of the material contained on this site without permission is strictly prohibited. Excerpts may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to CRCE-UK with a specific hyperlink to the original content. The copyright in the webinars is reserved for the owners of the content of the webinars.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER
By clicking onto this site the user accepts the following conditions
(1) The content of this site is for general information only.
(2) Nothing contained on this site is intended to be, or constitutes legal advice, on any general or specific legal matter.
(3) No liability is accepted for any reliance upon any post or material contained on this site.