0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Roberts v Williams, Court of Appeal, 18 May 2005

1 June 2005
The issues

Late Evidence – Whether Defendant Entitled To Rely On Evidence Lately Disclosed – Was The District Judge Correct To Refuse To Allow Evidence To Be Adduced On The Basis Of Adjournment Of Trial Would Have Been Necessary.

The facts

The Claimant and Defendant were parties to a neighbour dispute involving alleged encroachment on a right of way. The Defendants denied the allegations and counter claimed for trespass.

Six weeks before Trial the Defendant produced a witness statement relevant to an issue in the claim. The District Judge refused the evidence to be adduced on the basis that it would require adjournment and moreover that the statement raised a new issue in the claim and it would not have been equitable to allow it at that stage. The Defendants appealed to the Judge and the claim was dismissed. The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The statement related to the repetition of assurances made by a solicitor acting for the Claimant that certain works would be carried out which were the subject of the dispute were permissible.

The decision

The statement was relevant to the issue of whether or not the Defendant had consented to the works which were alleged to be an encroachment on the right of way.
The issue had been raised to some extent in the Defence.
It was unsatisfactory for the Trial Judge to hear only part of the evidence relevant to that issue.
The District Judge should have been slow to exclude the evidence since in particular it was not clear that an adjournment would have been required for the statement to have been dealt with.
Moreover, at the time the matter came before the Judge on appeal, the Trial had already been adjourned and the Trial Judge should have re-visited the matter having regard to that fact.

Appeal allowed

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up