Jose Carlos Maques Correia v Suleima Williams

Under the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 32, a witness statement for a witness who is not fluent in English must be drafted in the witness’s own language, with the required statement of truth likewise in that language. A materially defective statement is not automatically inadmissible, but permission is required. The court may refuse permission where admission would undermine credibility, cross-examination or procedural fairness. Late applications for new expert evidence may also be refused where the need was apparent earlier, no expert evidence is ready, and an adjournment would prejudice the other party or waste court resources. Appellate courts should respect robust and fair case-management decisions.

The appellant challenged an order of HHJ Gerald in the Central London County Court concerning a personal-injury claim arising from a road traffic accident. The first-instance judge refused applications concerning expert evidence, rejected the appellant’s witness statement, declined to admit a solicitor’s statement and handwritten notes, refused an adjournment to obtain urological evidence, and dismissed the claim.

Permission to appeal was granted on three grounds. The High Court considered whether the witness statement complied with the rules, whether the solicitor’s hearsay material should have been admitted, and whether the trial should have been adjourned for further expert evidence.

The appeal was dismissed on the three grounds for which permission had been granted. Renewed permission on the other two grounds was refused.

1. Witness statement. The requirements in the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 32 were substantive. The words if practicable qualified the requirement that the statement be in the witness’s own words, but did not qualify the requirement that it be drafted in the witness’s own language. The statement of truth also had to be in that language, and a foreign-language statement had to be translated and filed.
2. Permission to admit defects. The judge below went too far in treating the statement as no witness statement and inadmissible per se. The proper analysis was that it was inadmissible without permission. The permission jurisdiction applied to defects of form and substance. It was nevertheless properly refused because the statement was drafted by a solicitor in English for a witness who was not fluent in English, undermining confidence in its accuracy and creating serious difficulties for fair cross-examination. The application was also made on the first day of a tightly listed trial, creating prejudice, additional cost and possible loss of court time.
3. Solicitor’s notes. The notes of the Magistrates’ Court hearing were hearsay. Counsel had not invited their admission under the Civil Evidence Act 1995 or otherwise, and there was no basis for interfering with the judge’s decision. In any event, untested notes lacking contextual explanation, supporting photographs and evidence from the maker would have carried little weight on critical issues. That assessment was consistent with Aleksej Gubarev v Orbis Business Intelligence Limited [2020] EWHC 2812 (QB) at [115(2)].
4. Urological evidence and case management. The criteria identified in British Airways plc v Spencer [2015] EWHC 2477 were important where an expert-evidence application was made in good time. This application was issued shortly before trial, although the need for urological evidence had been apparent much earlier. No report had been obtained and no appropriate expert had been identified. The judge was entitled to refuse the adjournment, having regard to delay, prejudice and the overriding objective. The approach was supported by Chartwell Estate Agents Limited v Ferges Properties SA [2014] EWCA Civ 506 at [62] and Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] UKHL 27.

1. High Court (King’s Bench Division): On appeal, the court refused renewed permission on grounds 4 and 5 and dismissed the appeal on grounds 1–3. [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB).
2. Central London County Court: HHJ Gerald refused the evidential and adjournment applications, rejected the appellant’s witness statement and dismissed the claim by order dated 24 January 2022.