Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP (in Special Administration) & Ors

Supplementary evidence in chief may be admitted where it corrects a minor error or addresses a peripheral matter raised for completeness. Substantive supplemental evidence prepared late in a lengthy trial should be refused where the proposed evidence was not genuinely triggered by recent events, there is no compelling explanation for the delay, and the witness will have a fair opportunity to address the matters in cross-examination.

During an ongoing commercial trial, the claimant sought to adduce a third witness statement from Mr Horn as supplementary evidence in chief. The proposed statement corrected a date, addressed whether debit advice notes had been generated, and contained further material concerning advice from Norton Rose and the role of brokers.

The court considered whether the additional evidence had been genuinely prompted by events during the trial and whether its late admission was justified.

1. The correction to a date in the third witness statement was admitted. Corrections of that kind, preferably in a supplemental statement bearing a statement of truth, were appropriate.
2. Evidence concerning debit advice notes was admitted. The issue was peripheral and had been raised by the court for completeness. It was fair to allow the witness to address it, particularly since the evidence might ultimately prove immaterial.
3. The substantive sections concerning the Norton Rose advice and the role of brokers were excluded. The asserted trigger for providing them late was not realistic. The Norton Rose material had, at most, been prompted by the claimant’s written opening, which had been available before trial. The material concerning brokers was not genuinely triggered by anything particular occurring during the trial.
4. The court placed weight on the substantial delay, the absence of compelling evidence explaining why the material had not been provided earlier, and the likelihood that both topics would arise in cross-examination. The ordinary trial process would therefore give the witness a fair and sufficient opportunity to provide any relevant further evidence.
5. Permission was refused for paragraphs 7 and 10 to 14 of the third statement. Paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 could be verified as supplementary evidence in chief.