Van Dijk v Wilkinson (t/a HFF Construction)

On an appeal, permission may be given for parties to rely on new witness evidence where the material may assist the court. Where relevance is disputed, it may be preferable to grant permission and leave the parties to decide how far to rely on the evidence, rather than require the issue to be argued before the full court. Costs may be reserved.

This was a procedural matter arising on an appeal from the Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court. The court considered whether the parties should be permitted to adduce further witness statements and background documents. The relevance of some statements was disputed. The central issue was whether permission should be granted so that the parties could determine the extent to which the evidence would be relied upon.

1. Lord Justice Latham considered that an order permitting either party to put new evidence before the Court of Appeal was necessary. The witness statements of Mr Harris and Mr Brown included background documents and appeared capable of assisting the court. Permission was therefore granted for the appellant and respondent to rely on that evidence.
2. Although the relevance of the statements of Mr Robinson and Mr Langley was disputed, it was preferable to grant permission rather than leave the matter uncertain and require it to be argued before the full court. The parties could decide the extent to which they wished to rely on those statements.
3. The appellant was permitted to rely on the evidence of Mr Harris and Mr Robinson. The respondent was permitted to rely on the evidence of Mr Brown and Mr Langley. Costs were reserved.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission was granted to both parties to rely on specified witness evidence. Costs were reserved.
• Queen’s Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court): The matter came on appeal from this court, but the judgment appealed from is not identified by citation in the supplied text.