Our Expertise

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Leila Benyounes – £1.5 million Settlement in Delay in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Leila Benyounes represented the Claimant in a clinical negligence claim arising from a delay in diagnosing breast cancer, resulting in permanent physical and psychological symptoms, and a loss of fertility.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As a result of the delay in diagnosis, the Claimant required a double mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy which would all have been avoided but for the negligence.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Permanent physical symptoms included bilateral breast deformity and asymmetry, chronic lymphoedema, peripheral neuropathy and chronic back pain. The Claimant developed an anxiety and depressive order and suffered loss of fertility and a reduced life expectancy as a result of the negligence.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Causation of the Claimant’s injuries and the permanent symptoms resulting in an inability to return to work was strongly contested by the Defendant. Ten disciplines of expert evidence were relied upon, and the case was listed for a 10-day trial of causation and quantum.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Leila acted for the Claimant throughout this claim in respect of pleadings and conducting conferences with experts.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Settlement in the sum of £1,545,000.00 was eventually reached at a joint settlement meeting before trial.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Leila was instructed by Lindsay Clark at <a href="https://www.switalskis.com/people">Switalskis</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>Leila is a specialist in the fields of Clinical Negligence and Inquests. She is Head of the Inquests Team&nbsp;at Parklane Plowden Chambers and&nbsp;is ranked as a leading junior in Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners for Clinical Negligence and Inquests and Inquiries. Her full profile can be accessed </em><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/barristers/leila-benyounes"><em>here</em></a><em><u></u></em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

HQA v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/howard-elgot/">Howard Elgot</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/megan-crowther/">Megan Crowther</a> of Parklane Plowden Chambers, instructed by David Bradshaw of <a href="https://www.hay-kilner.co.uk/">Hay &amp; Kilner LLP</a>, acted for the Claimant in her claim against the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in a 5-day High Court trial at the Royal Courts of Justice last week. Judgment has been reserved. The trial is to determine breach of duty and causation, and liability has been strongly contested by the Trust.<br><br>The claim was brought after the Claimant, who can be referred to only as HQA because of an anonymity order made by the High Court, suffered severe brain damage after undergoing open heart surgery at the Freeman Hospital, Newcastle. The Claimant had suffered congenital heart problems from birth and had undergone many operations and other procedures over her lifetime.<br><br>In order to gain access to her heart, the surgeon used an oscillating saw. The saw slipped, and instead of the saw cutting through only the anterior section of the Claimant’s sternum, the saw went fully through the sternum and into her aorta, cutting off the blood supply to her brain.<br><br>It then took so long for the surgeons to put the Claimant on cardio-pulmonary bypass that she suffered very severe hypoxic brain damage. The time was prolonged in part because another surgeon, who had been called in because of the emergency, attempted to cannulate one femoral artery, the artery dissected, and another femoral artery had to be prepared and cannulated.<br><br>Following the operation, HQA’s family were told to expect the worst, but the Claimant has at least made a partial recovery.<br><br>The allegations against the hospital are that the surgeons did not obtain HQA’s informed consent to the operation, that the surgeons failed to plan adequately for the possibility of the catastrophic event that occurred, and that the operating surgeon ought to have been able to keep control of his saw. The Claimant’s expert cardiac surgeon advised that the dissection of the artery in the panic of the emergency was an inherent risk and therefore a free-standing claim relating to the arterial dissection could not be pursued.<br><br>The allegations that the surgeons failed to prepare for the possibility of the aorta being pierced during the surgery were focused upon the CT Angiogram that HQA had undergone before surgery, and another CT Angiogram that she had undergone in 2016.  A central issue was whether HQA’s aorta was so closely applied to the back of her sternum that any slip of the saw or use of any dissecting instrument would inevitably pierce the aorta.<br><br>The claim is estimated to have a value of over £5,000,000.<br></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Settlement Success in Expedited Clinical Negligence Case

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Megan Crowther represented the Claimant in her clinical negligence claim for delayed diagnosis of lung cancer. The Claimant lost around seven years of her life expectancy and is not expected to survive beyond Summer 2025.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Proceedings were issued in September 2024 and the Claimant requested expedited directions to trial, so she could see her claim conclude in her lifetime. The five day trial was listed for May 2025. The Claimant also applied successfully to give evidence on commission (deposition) due to her deteriorating condition. This took place at the Claimant’s home.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Defendant admitted a failure to diagnose lung cancer around July 2020 but denied that this had any causative impact following the Claimant’s diagnosis in May 2021. The Claimant’s case was that her cancer would have been stage 1, treatable by radiotherapy alone, and she would have been cured. The Defendant’s position was that the cancer would have been stage IIIA due to lymph node involvement and the position would have been the same – aggressive, but unsuccessful, treatment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parties exchanged medical evidence in disciplines of radiology, oncology, respiratory medicine and care. The claim was compromised following receipt of joint statements from the experts in radiology and oncology, around six weeks before trial, in a six figure sum.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Megan was instructed by <a href="https://www.leighday.co.uk/about-us/our-people/partners/brendan-hope/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Brendan Hope</a> and <a href="https://www.leighday.co.uk/about-us/our-people/senior-staff/rebecca-ridgeon/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Rebecca Ridgeon</a> at Leigh Day. Megan was first instructed in August 2024 and has worked closely with her Instructing Solicitors at every stage of this claim to rapidly progress the matter to settlement in March 2025, in the best interests of the Claimant.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Settlement Success in Clinical Negligence Birth Injury

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Leila Benyounes represented the Claimant who suffered a “never event” when a vaginal swab was retained following the birth of her first child. This caused multiple medical presentations, repeated infections, and the development of a severe injury.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Causation of the Claimant’s permanent symptoms resulting in an inability to return to work full-time was strongly contested by the Defendant.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Leila acted for the Claimant throughout this claim in respect of pleadings and conducting conferences with experts of different disciplines, and the case had been listed for trial of causation and quantum.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Settlement of a six-figure sum was eventually reached nine years after the negligence at a joint settlement meeting.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Leila was instructed by <a href="https://www.ramsdens.co.uk/team/rachel-sharp" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Rachel Sharp</a> at Ramsdens Solicitors.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>Leila is a specialist in the fields of Clinical Negligence and Inquests. She is Head of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden Chambers and is ranked as a leading junior in Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners for Clinical Negligence and Inquests and Inquiries. Her full profile can be accessed </em><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/barristers/leila-benyounes" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>here</em></a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Stuart Jamieson Helps Secure Settlement for Family of Man Who Died of Metastasised Colon Cancer

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><em>BST (deceased) v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust</em></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Stuart Jamieson, instructed by <a href="https://www.switalskis.com/profile/claire-garrity" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Claire Garrity of Switalskis</a>, has helped secure a settlement for the Estate and dependants of a man that died from metastasised colon cancer. The six-figure settlement (subject to an anonymity order) was recently approved by HHJ Gargan, the Designated Civil Judge in Leeds. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The key disputes within the proceedings involved the failure to investigate the deceased upon GP referral by way of a colonoscopy to rule out a mucosal lesion, denied by the Defendant Trust as representing a breach of duty, and separately the effect of a failure to identify the Deceased’s colon cancer on a CT scan years later. The full causative effect of this later breach of duty was denied by the Trust. The Defendant denied that identification of the Deceased’s colon cancer at the time of the CT scan would have avoided the Deceased’s death, the disease subsequently metastasising to his liver and lungs. The Claimant’s case was that earlier identification from the CT scan would likely have avoided the Deceased’s death and his treatment requirements for a stoma, systemic chemotherapy and treatment for liver metastases. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The settlement on behalf of the Estate and dependants was approved in January 2025. The claim was contested over several years and with competing expert evidence in Oncology and Coloproctology. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>Stuart Jamieson is a barrister specialising in Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury. Stuart is the Head of the Civil Team at Parklane Plowden</em>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Parklane Plowden Podcast – Getting the Best Out of Expert Evidence in Clinical Negligence Proceedings

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Listen to Parklane Plowden’s latest PLP Podcast – Getting the best out of expert evidence in clinical negligence litigation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Head of Parklane Plowden’s Civil team, personal injury and clinical negligence barrister <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/stuart-jamieson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Stuart Jamieson</a> and head of the Clinical Negligence team, barrister <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/anna-datta/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Anna Data</a> discuss expert evidence in clinical negligence.  </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Experts and their evidence are central to clinical negligence litigation, so it is essential to take steps to maximise their value to support cases.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The two discuss strategies and principles and provide guidance on how legal practitioners can get the most out of experts throughout proceedings.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This encompasses all stages from medical expert witness selection and what to look out for at preliminary conferences, through to trial including the use of literature, expert reports, joint statements and overall court presentation.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Throughout the podcast, Stuart and Anna refer to individual cases where expert evidence was a key factor in the proceedings and analyse key lessons.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Listen to the podcast below.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Helpful resources and further reading:</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Duties of an expert</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part35" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CPR 35</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=CCC+v+Sheffield+Teaching+Hospitals+NHSFT+%5B2023%5D&amp;rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1054GB1054&amp;oq=CCC+v+Sheffield+Teaching+Hospitals+NHSFT+%5B2023%5D&amp;gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCggCEAAYogQYiQUyBwgDEAAY7wUyBwgEEAAY7wUyBwgFEAAY7wUyBwgGEAAY7wXSAQczODdqMGo3qAIAsAIA&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHSFT [2023]</a> </li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/649f20468fa1977797a22413" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Riley v Salford Royal NHS FT [2022]</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Approach taken by the expert</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/celine-martin-v-salford-royal-nhs-foundation-trust-the-question-of-double-recovery-in-care-claims-when-there-is-a-pre-existing-state-funded-care-package/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Celine Martin v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/65720fb2cd29093de5347806#:~:text=Decision,were%20awarded%20to%20the%20Claimant." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Parsons v Isle of Wight NHS Trust [2023]</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Use of literature</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6494a422744f894966d01665" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Snow v Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Trust [2023] EWHC (KB)</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The expert report</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/64c7fff1b4b0e776d726a73e" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jayden Astley (by his father and litigation friend Craig Astley) v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHSFT [2023] EWHC 1921 (KB)</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The joint statement</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897ad2c94e06b9e1983fc" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Saunders v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/most-unsatisfactory-expert-evidence-under-fire-from-judge/5068984.article" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mayr v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2022/03/10/experts-going-wrong-again-this-time-it-has-cost-someone-225000-the-work-turns-into-dust/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Patricia Andrews &amp; Ors v Kronospan Limited [ 2022 ] EWHC 479 (QB)</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Trial</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6576d91b52aae60ac079d19b" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Beatty v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2023]</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/64ee3c099887ba4f0b22f108" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Scarcliffe v Brampton Valley Group Ltd (2023)</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list -->

He Said, She Said: Witness Credibility in Deakin-Stephenson v Behar &amp; Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2338 (KB)

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Background:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Claimant attended hospital in November 2016 following pains in her abdomen and was diagnosed with diverticulitis. Treatment of the abdominal condition was attempted but on the 5<sup>th</sup> day of her time in hospital, the disease progressed. A surgical procedure was carried out on the 6<sup>th</sup> day, which settled her condition. On the 7<sup>th</sup> day, the Claimant collapsed and emergency Hartmann’s surgery was performed, resulting in the Claimant being left with a stoma. The prognosis was for chronic abdominal pain and PTSD, amongst other conditions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>There were a significant number of unknown facts in the case. For example, the parties disagreed about the chronology, consent process and requests for referrals to a specialist colorectal surgeon.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Claimant’s evidence:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Claimant appears to have given in a generally unfavourable way. However, the judge noted that <em>“the court places limited weight on demeanour as a reliable guide to where the truth lies”. </em>Instead, the content of the evidence was more important. The Claimant’s answers were thought to contain notable inconsistencies when compared to the First Defendant’s contemporaneous evidence.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A central dispute between the parties was whether the Claimant did indeed, as she submitted, ask Mr Behar for a repeated referral to a specialist colorectal surgeon. When cross-examined, she became “abrasive” and did not answer questions directly. She answered by providing “speeches”, often with medical material she has since learned of upon being diagnosed with her condition. On the referral issue, she undermined her point on several occasions. Emails and letters from the Claimant herself undermined the reliability of her account.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Claimant’s occasional sarcasm was also considered to be “<em>unhelpful</em>” and “<em>unnecessary</em>”. Overall, her evidence was thought to be <em>“confused and contradictory”.</em> The medical evidence contradicted what was said at trial, presenting her as unconvincing.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Judge concluded that, while she has faced significant trauma from the events of November 2016, her account raised <em>“serious concerns”</em> regarding the accuracy and probability of what happened. It was found to be <em>“inaccurate, unreliable and improbable”.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>First Defendant’s evidence:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mr Behar was able to explain his medical notes and identify his entries. He accepted that some of his entries were unclear. The evidence was complicated by inconsistent contemporaneous records. Mr Behar’s record-keeping was poor with gaps about meetings with the Claimant. Despite this, he was found to be honest and the fact that the records existed, albeit incomplete, were key to assessing what was the most likely version of events.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The near-contemporaneous evidence supported his account. His honest demeanour was considered alongside the records. The fact that he acknowledged his shortcomings of making errors was in his favour. He was deemed to be telling the truth while the records contradicted C’s account.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mr Justice Dias KC assessed both witnesses by considering the full context of each account. This approach looks records, expert evidence and common sense.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Decision:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Judge, Mr Justice Dias KC, sitting in the High Court, considered both accounts of the Claimant and the First Defendant.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>&nbsp;The Judge decided that the Claimant’s evidence lacked credibility on several issues. Her statements were misleading and the court deemed her evidence as “weak” overall.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Ultimately, it was held that there was no breach of duty and no causative breach by the First Defendant.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In contrast, the First Defendant was assessed by the court as honest, fluent and fair. His professionalism and credibility were commended.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Analysis:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This case is a useful example of how to approach the issue of witness credibility. It was specifically and repeated stated that demeanour is not especially significant but that it will be considered when assessing witnesses. This is particularly important when the factual matrix of the case is unclear. In order for the court to make a finding of fact, the evidence from witnesses must also fit together with the contemporaneous records, expert evidence, common sense and probability.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In addition, practitioners should remember the importance of detailed record keeping and how it may detriment a case. Those making the record should be prepared for every word, down to adverbs, to be scrutinised. The record-keeping process, and the content of the records themselves, may be crucial on a case with key factual disputes. &nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Finally, the judgment is also useful as it helpfully outlines 13 principles of fact-finding (see &nbsp;paragraph 53 of the Judgment). In summary:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list {"ordered":true} --> <ol class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li> The burden of proof rests exclusively on the person making the claim who must prove the claim to the conventional civil standard of a balance of probabilities.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly (fairly and safely) be drawn from the evidence, but not mere speculation.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li> The court must survey the "<em>wide canvas</em>" of the evidence.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Evidence must not be evaluated "<em>in separate compartments</em>" but must "<em>consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence".</em></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The process must be iterative, considering all the evidence recursively before reaching any final conclusion.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The court must decide whether the fact to be proved happened or not. Fence-sitting is not permitted.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The law invokes a binary system of truth values – a judge must decide whether or not it happened.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>There are important and recognised limits on the reliability of human memory as set out in <em>Gestmin SCPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd</em> EWHC 3560 (Comm) at paras 15-22, per Leggatt J.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The court "<em>takes account of any inherent probability or improbability of an event having occurred as part of the natural process of reasoning"</em>.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Contemporary documents are <em>"always of the utmost importance"</em> (<em>Onassis)</em> but in their absence, greater weight will be placed on inherent probability or improbability of witness's accounts.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The judge can use findings affecting the credibility of a witness on one issue in respect of another.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>However, the court must be vigilant to avoid the fallacy that adverse credibility conclusions/findings on one issue are determinative of another and/or render the witness's evidence worthless.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Decisions should not be based "<em>solely</em>" on demeanour, but when fairly assessed in context, it retains a place in the overall evaluation of credibility.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ol> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Conclusion:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The case provides a useful lesson in not only the content of witness statements but also how witnesses present. Ultimately, contemporaneous records will be favoured, provided the records are clear and logical. If there is a dispute about witness credibility, the account that aligns with the contemporaneous evidence is likely to be the most probable, as in this case.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The full judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/2338.html#para151" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.  </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->