DeFreitas v Deane (CL 43 of 2017) [2022] TCASC 22 (5 August 2022)

Flynote

Civil Procedure

Case summary

The Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a supplemental witness statement, a statement of anticipated evidence, and an amended trial bundle. As regards costs, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the summons, as the summons became necessary because of errors or delays by the Plaintiffs. In exercising its power to allow supplemental evidence, the Court should determine what is just in all the circumstances. The Court started from the premise that unless there is a very good reason to exclude it, all admissible evidence should be available to the trial judge, and “a very good reason” will almost invariably include proof of prejudice to another party. [11] – [13] Ryanair Ltd v Bravofly Ltd [2016] IESC 53; Rashid v Oil Companies International Marine Forum [2019] EWHC 2239 (QB) considered The Defendants had not shown that they would suffer any real prejudice if the evidence was allowed to be admitted. The supplemental witness statement would introduce photographs which were previously disclosed, and which appear to be relevant to the case. The statement of anticipated evidence is largely in the same terms as the unsigned witness statement that the Plaintiffs had previously (and erroneously) filed. [14]

---