Indemnity Costs for Disproportionate Application to Strike Out Witness Evidence (Curtiss and others v Zurich Insurance plc)

Indemnity Costs for Disproportionate Application to Strike Out Witness Evidence (Curtiss and others v Zurich Insurance plc)


CategoryArticles Author James Bradford Date

Dispute Resolution analysis:  Judge Keyser QC (sitting as a High Court judge) has given a warning to practitioners who seek to make inappropriate applications to strike out witness evidence prepared for a trial, pursuant to CPR PD 57AC, on the basis of non-compliance with that Practice Direction applicable to trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts.  While this application had partial success (in that parts of the claimants’ witness statements were struck out), the nature of the application, which was judged to be ‘disproportionate’ and ‘oppressive’, including given the scale of the costs which were generated, meant that the applicant was ordered to pay 75% of the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis.  The decision acts as a clear guide to the parameters of the sanctions regime for non-compliance with the Practice Direction on witness statements and a reminder of the consequences of failure to adhere to the principles set out in recent case law.  Written by James Bradford, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers.

Curtiss and others v Zurich Insurance plc [2022] EWHC 1514

You can read the full post on our Commercial, Construction & Interational Arbitration Blog here

This analysis was first published on LexisNexis® on 27 June 2022 and can be found here (subscription required).


Related Barristers


Legal updates


Subscribe to our newsletters, updates and seminars.

Subscribe

Call +44 (0)20 7832 1111 for more information

Barrister portfolio

Close

Click the + icon next to any barrister to add their profile to this portfolio.

Barrister Call CV Email