Scriven v Scriven

When deciding whether to admit a late supplementary witness statement, the court must exercise its case-management discretion in accordance with the overriding objective. Relevant considerations include the reasons for introducing the material, its relationship to disclosure requests or procedural notices, whether it could properly have been elicited in supplementary examination-in-chief, the effect on the trial timetable, and any prejudice to the other parties. Material should be excluded where clearly appropriate, but, where it is not irrelevant or embarrassing and admission causes no undue prejudice or disruption, the balance may favour inclusion.

The claimant sought to introduce a further witness statement and extensive exhibits during an ongoing trial. The statement responded in part to a notice under the Practice Direction to CPR Part 32 and to a specific-disclosure request, but also expanded upon matters that could have been addressed earlier. The defendants objected, citing late service, the need for further cross-examination and possible expert evidence. The court determined whether the statement should be admitted and, if so, on what basis.

1. The court admitted the claimant’s further witness statement, subject to the agreed deletion of paragraphs 38 to 42 concerning Tamengo Limited and Warrendene Limited.
2. The decision involved an exercise of case-management discretion. The court considered the overriding objective in Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR rule 1, including the need to deal with the case justly.
3. Although the objections had force, significant parts of the statement were reasonably connected with the fourth defendant’s notice and the other defendants’ requests for specific disclosure. Some additional material could ordinarily have been introduced through supplementary questions in examination-in-chief.
4. The trial was already substantially over its original estimate and, because of expert availability, was likely to be part-heard. Admission therefore was not expected to add significantly to the trial’s length, disrupt the existing timetable materially or cause undue prejudice. The other parties were entitled to recall the claimant for cross-examination, and experts might be required to consider the documents.
5. The court also gave weight to the fact that the proceedings concerned an unfortunate family dispute. Excluding evidence which was not on its face irrelevant or embarrassing could create a strong sense of injustice. In the circumstances, the balance favoured inclusion.