Read the full judgment text of HCPI 687/2010 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 18 June 2012 before Bharwaney J.
Civil procedure – personal injury action – late application for leave to file additional witness statements – checklist review stage when case is ready to be set down for trial – requirement to furnish signed witness statements containing statement of truth – master's discretion to assess admissibility, relevance and probative value – court's case management powers – objectives of civil justice reform including cost effectiveness, expedition, proportionality, procedural economy and fairness between parties – distinction between admissible factual evidence and inadmissible opinion evidence – leave to adduce opinion on hypothetical employment refused – factors weighing relevance and probative value against disruption to trial, prejudice to other parties and explanation for delay – leave to file revised statement of damages and further quantum statements at checklist review only permits updating quantum, not raising new heads of claim – specific leave required for new heads of claim – appeal from master resolved by consent summons – practice note issued to provide guidance to civil and personal injury practitioners.
Legal issues: Requirement to furnish signed witness statements for late application to file additional witness statements at checklist review stage · Distinction between admissible factual evidence and inadmissible opinion evidence in additional witness statements · Factors governing exercise of discretion on late applications for additional witness statements · Scope of leave to file further statements on quantum at checklist review
Outcome: The appeal was resolved by a consent summons filed by the parties on 1 June 2012, and the judge made an order in terms of the agreed directions and orders. The hearing on 1 June 2012 was vacated.
Cited by 3 cases