Neal v Jones (t/a Jones Motors)

This procedural order concerned case-management directions on further evidence in a personal injury appeal. The Court of Appeal admitted specified witness evidence and a video, subject to the witnesses attending for questioning, while excluding specified passages and comparable evidence concerning damages. It permitted responsive evidence and directed that the appeal be re-listed before a three-judge court. The court’s encouragement to consider mediation was expressly a hope, not a direction. The transcript does not formulate a general legal test.

Alison Jones appealed from an order of Mr Recorder Tackaberry QC, sitting as a High Court judge. The appeal was accompanied by applications concerning further evidence, including witness statements and a video, and an application concerning amendment of the appellant’s notices. The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and relevance of the proposed evidence and gave directions for the future hearing of the appeal.

The immediate issues concerned which evidence should be admitted, what responsive evidence could be filed, whether witnesses should attend for questioning, and how the appeal should proceed.

1. Admission of evidence. Miss Tedstone’s evidence was admitted subject to the condition that she attend the Court of Appeal to be questioned on her witness statement. Mr Neal’s evidence and the video were also admitted.
2. Exclusion of material. Paragraphs 6 to 9 of Miss Tedstone’s first witness statement and paragraph 8 of her second statement were excluded. Comparable evidence in Mr Neal’s first statement concerning what happened to the damages was also excluded. Some features of Mr Neal’s evidence had become irrelevant in light of the evidence admitted concerning Mr Parrott, the video and Miss Tedstone.
3. Further directions. Mr Neal was permitted to file a further statement responding to Miss Tedstone’s two statements by 10 May 2002. The appeal was directed to be re-listed before a three-judge court, including Lord Justice Brooke and preferably Sir Christopher Staughton, on the first open day after 1 June, with an estimated duration of two days. Miss Tedstone and Mr Neal were ordered to attend for questioning.
4. Costs and mediation. The costs of the hearing were made costs in the appeal. Lord Justice Brooke expressed the hope that the parties would consider mediation, but expressly stated that this was not a direction.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from an order of Mr Recorder Tackaberry QC, sitting as a High Court judge, the court admitted specified further evidence subject to conditions, excluded specified material, permitted responsive evidence and directed re-listing before a three-judge court.