Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited

Remote evidence from a foreign jurisdiction may be permitted where there is a good reason, the order serves a legitimate aim and it is consistent with the overriding objective. The relevant comparison may be between video-link evidence and the absence of oral evidence, rather than between remote and ideal in-person testimony. A witness’s voluntary refusal to attend England is not necessarily an impermissible ultimatum. Comity does not require foreign-state consent where the witness participates voluntarily and the foreign law does not prohibit video-link evidence. Any residual forensic disadvantage may be addressed through safeguards, judicial oversight and submissions on weight.

The claimants relied materially on hearsay evidence from Gavin Burrows concerning alleged unlawful information-gathering activities. Mr Burrows had withdrawn his cooperation, was living overseas, was medically unfit to travel and declined to disclose his location because of alleged threats and business sensitivities. An earlier witness summons was ineffective because it was served while he was outside England and Wales.

The claimants sought permission for Mr Burrows to give evidence voluntarily by video-link from a foreign jurisdiction which was not party to a relevant evidence-taking treaty. The central issue was whether the court could permit remote evidence despite the absence of foreign-state consent and the proposed non-disclosure of his location.

1. The application was granted. Permission was given for Mr Burrows to give evidence remotely by video-link, subject to stringent safeguards and continuing judicial oversight.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 32.3 and PD32 Annex 3, the court had to consider whether remote evidence was supported by a good reason, served a legitimate aim and was consistent with the overriding objective. Live evidence in court remained preferable, but video-link evidence was not automatically unacceptable.
3. The proper comparison was between permitting cross-examination by video-link and receiving no oral evidence from a central witness. In the circumstances, excluding Mr Burrows’ oral evidence would cause the greater interference with the interests of justice. His position was a factual constraint, not an attempt to dictate terms to the court.
4. The court applied the approach in Skywind Holdings Ltd v Wilson [2025] EWHC 3524 (Comm). The evidence of threats and safety concerns could not finally be resolved on the interim application, but it was sufficient to support treating Mr Burrows as vulnerable and to justify proportionate protective measures. Video-link cross-examination could effectively test evidence, and any disadvantage could be addressed through submissions on weight.
5. Following Joyce v Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd [2011] FCAFC 95, comity did not prevent permission. The evidence showed that Mr Burrows was participating voluntarily and that the foreign law did not prohibit video-link evidence. Foreign-state consent was therefore not a precondition to the exercise of the power. Non-disclosure of the location created a legitimate but limited concern, which was mitigated by safeguards.
6. The existing order permitted only the defendant to cross-examine Mr Burrows on his hearsay statements. The claimants remained free to apply to abandon reliance on the evidence as hearsay and seek permission to call him as a witness; that issue was reserved.

The judgment records earlier limitation proceedings, including a limitation judgment reported at [2024] 1 WLR 3669, but this was a first-instance procedural application and no appellate disposition is stated.