Service of Supplementary Witness Statements in a Post-Mitchell World - Jack Harding, 1 Chancery Lane
19/07/14. In many cases the Court orders parties simultaneously to exchange witness statements. The rationale is clear: sequential exchange may well give one party an unfair advantage in terms of the ability to tailor the content of their own statements in response to the statements served by the other side. The corollary of simultaneous exchange, however, is that one party will often seek to adduce a supplementary witness statement. It might do so as a direct response to the other side’s evidence, or, more controversially, in an attempt to re-cast its case when it becomes clear what the other’s side arguments will be. What, then, is the effect of CPR 32.5(3) and (4) in this scenario? The rules provide as follows...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Blair_witch
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
