This site uses cookies.

Surveillance Evidence: Trump Card or Joker? Grant v Newport City Council [2018] EWHC 3813 Ch - Vinesh Mistry, Barrister, DWF Advocacy Ltd

19//02/20. Grant v Newport City Council [2018] EWHC 3813 Ch (“Grant”) is a fairly typical multi-track 'slip and trip'. Over the course of litigation, the defendant covertly monitored the claimant. The defendant initially obtained footage of the claimant walking, and further surveillance then demonstrated her working. This was all contrary to the claimant's pleaded case. Approximately 4 weeks before trial, the defendant disclosed the surveillance evidence to the claimant and applied for permission to rely on the same and to amend its Defence to aver fraud.

At first instance, His Honour Judge Jarman QC dismissed the application as: (1) the trial would have been adjourned if permission was granted; and (2) the defendant was tardy in bringing its application. The defendant appealed this decision.

Issues and Judgment

The first issue considered by Birss J was the date on which the defendant should have disclosed the surveillance footage. The defendant monitored the claimant in February 2018 and then again in March 2018. The two pieces of footage were disclosed to the claimant in one tranche in June 2018. Birss J held that "the defendant could and should have disclosed the February footage at that stage … if it wanted to ensure there was no risk of procedural unfairness to the claimant…"

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Kuzma

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.