0370 270 6000

Video evidence... when to disclose?

4 May 2018
We recently had cause to appeal a decision of a District Judge preventing us from relying upon video footage (even though he had described it as “pure gold”).

Our video evidence showed the claimant as unreliable (at best) but the medical evidence was not conclusive and the claimant’s statement was out of date. We needed the claimant to “pin her colours to the mast” so she could not later argue that she had good and bad days. We were working on this as the trial date loomed closer.

We were disappointed at first instance that the District Judge decided we were trying to ambush the claimant when we were clearly not. We were vindicated on appeal and the evidence was allowed in, leading to the claimant discontinuing.

This claim illustrated the fact that each case will turn on its facts and that there may be good reasons why surveillance evidence is not disclosed until relatively late in the day. If there are good, plausible reasons, then following the test in Rall v Hume (2001), the video evidence should be allowed.

Related opinions

Employers liability for practical jokes in the workplace

The extent of vicarious liability has been tested by the courts again and this time in relation to employees engaging in horseplay and practical jokes.

View blog

Watch this space on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility

The concept of Assumption of Responsibility is on many stakeholders’ minds at the moment following the Supreme Court decision in CN & GN v Poole.

View blog

Landlord and tenant inspections - getting the evidence right

In Rogerson v Bolsover District Council (2019) the Court of Appeal found against a local authority landlord pursuant to the Defective Premises Act 1972 following a finding of an inadequate inspection regime.

View blog

Applying QOCS protection in a claim for personal injury and something else

In The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Brown [2018], the High Court ruled that a Circuit Judge was wrong to automatically apply QOCS protection to a claim for misuse of data which also included a claim for personal injury.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up