Admissibility meaning

Checklist on expert evidence in Scottish civil litigation This checklist outlines the principal factors for a solicitor contemplating engaging an expert in a civil dispute before the Scottish courts. It should be read alongside Practice Notes: Expert evidence in Scottish civil litigation-general considerations and Leading expert evidence in Scottish civil litigation-rules and procedure. Issue Considerations Assessing the need for an expert witness What kind of dispute is involved (for instance, a professional negligence claim will typically require an expert report before proceedings are commenced)? Is instructing an expert reasonable and proportionate when measured against the value of the claim? Is there a need to instruct more than one expert? Admissibility of the expert evidence Is expert assistance required to enable the court to decide the issues? Does the expert possess the appropriate knowledge and experience? Will the expert remain impartial in their presentation and assessment of the...

Evidence of bad character Specify the impugned bad character material. Check: whether the evidence of bad character falls within the meaning of 'bad character' in section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) Outline the grounds said to justify refusing admission. Identify: the statutory gateway(s) in dispute any other basis for exclusion, eg unfairness under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and/or CJA 2003, s 101(3) (exclusion under gateway 101(1)(d) (propensity) or s 101(1)(g) (attack on another person's character)) or s 103(3) (unjust to admit convictions by reason of the age of the conviction) why the evidence is not relevant Address each ground of objection in order, by reference to the appropriate statutory gateway(s) (CJA 2003, ss 102–106). See Practice Notes: Admissibility of defendant's bad character in criminal proceedings and Admissibility of bad character as...

ARCHIVED This Checklist is archived and is not maintained or updated. It considers how UK courts would apply Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)—which concerns the allocation of court jurisdiction for civil and commercial matters—if the UK were to leave the EU on exit day without a deal, the so‑called ‘no deal Brexit’ scenario. ‘Exit day’ has the meaning given by section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Checklist reviews the Regulation’s jurisdictional articles and evaluates whether the UK courts will apply them and, if so, in what way. The outcome varies depending on whether proceedings are started before exit day (with the jurisdictional issue decided afterwards) or initiated after exit day. The principal UK instrument is the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/479. Coming into force on exit day, it includes a range of savings provisions and modifications to Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), alongside amendment and revocation of specified UK and EU legislation. For details of the legislation...

What was the background to the dispute? The arbitration stems from an actio ut singuli brought by Mr [J], a minority investor in Petrobras, against the União, seeking compensation for harm allegedly sustained by Petrobras after the appointment of board members reportedly linked to the Brazilian ‘Lava Jato’ corruption affair. Petrobras is a Brazilian mixed-economy entity engaged in the production, exploration, refining and sale of oil and gas. Its by-laws include an arbitration clause. On that footing, MUDES launched CAM arbitration proceedings in March 2017, and Mr [J] filed separate CAM proceedings in October 2017, both directed at the União. The União contested the clause’s applicability, denied being bound to arbitrate, and challenged the objective arbitrability of the case, invoking its public-law prerogatives. The two proceedings were consolidated in April 2018. On 15 January 2020, the arbitral tribunal issued an interim award confirming its jurisdiction. On 26 January 2023, the President of the Paris Judicial Court granted exequatur in France to the partial award...

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and others [2024] EWHC 1749 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling ranges across important matters of procedure as well as economic torts and freezing injunctions. It emphasises the bar on deploying, as evidence, judgments from proceedings to which the defendants were not parties, and warns against placing excessive reliance on interim judgments. It also illustrates the breadth of defences that should be evaluated at trial, even where substantial defences have not been pleaded by those defendants. The court analyses the relatively new Marextort, concerning conduct said to thwart enforcement of court judgments. Finally, it distils the principles relevant to allegations of unlawful means conspiracy in the setting of attempts to breach a freezing injunction. It further underscores the continuing difficulties that claimants may encounter when suing unrepresented and disengaged defendants who nonetheless press on to trial. What was the background? In late 2014 and early 2015, the claimant (‘Lakatamia’) secured judgment against Mr Su for...

Meta Platforms’ WhatsApp can challenge a decision by a group of EU data protection authorities before the EU courts EU judges confirmed on 10 February 2026 that WhatsApp may directly contest a binding decision of the EDPB before the EU courts, in a landmark move that could clear the way for similar appeals currently stuck before EU judges. The EU Court of Justice said the EDPB’s measure creates binding legal consequences that can immediately impact the company, so a direct action is available indeed. As the court put it, the EDPB’s decision clearly qualifies as an act that can be challenged before the Courts of the EU, according to its statement. Observers have tracked the dispute closely because this is the first ruling to address whether an EDPB decision can be brought straight to the General Court, rather than forcing a company to route its objections through a national tribunal. The EU’s top court has now sent the case back to the EU’s General Court to rule on the...

Proving the identity of the driver Where the bench is satisfied the defendant was served with a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the court receives a statement from the defendant admitting they were the driver, that statement is accepted as proof of identity. If no such admission exists—either because a RTA 1988, s 172 notice was not properly served in line with the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, Pt 4, or the allegation is not one to which section 172 applies—the magistrates will look to other material. Information provided by the registered keeper to police during interview or questioning Entries held on the police national database See: Creed v Scott [1976] RTR 485 (not reported by LexisNexis®) and DPP v Bayliff [2003] EWHC 539 (Admin) (not reported by LexisNexis®). Details supplied to the police may suffice to prove who was driving; it is immaterial whether a driving licence is produced to confirm name...

The general principles In an ideal scenario, the wording and provisions of contracts, deeds and other documents would be free of ambiguity, preventing misunderstanding when construing them; yet, in reality, and in practice, that is not invariably so. Consequently, the courts have fashioned methods or principles for construction and interpretation, including the interpretation of scheme deeds and rules in the pensions context. The principles governing the construction of documents are now well settled and uncontroversial. The courts’ objective is to construe documents by ‘common sense’ standards; they ultimately consider the ordinary and natural meaning of the language employed. These principles have been refined, built upon and expanded through a number of significant House of Lords and Supreme Court decisions. Judicial reasoning has built upon these foundations...

The elements of the offence of speeding Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 sets out the offence of driving above a prescribed speed limit. The essential components are that: an individual operates a motor vehicle on a road at a speed beyond a limit set by, or under, any enactment to which this section applies The applicable enactments include those within the RTRA 1984 itself and any other enactment made after 1 September 1960. This offence is summary only and so is dealt with in the magistrates’ court. Offences of exceeding the speed limit in the 1984 Act are divided into four classes: exceeding limits on roads restricted to 20, 30, 40 or 50 mph breaching temporary limits of 70, 60 and 50 mph on roads other than motorways exceeding, on any road, the limit applicable to the class of vehicle contravening speed limits that apply solely to motorways ...

[ Insert name and address of client ] Private and confidential Dear [ insert name ] [ Your OR [ insert name of other party ] ] employment tribunal claim Disclosure of documents In preparing for [ your employment tribunal claim OR the employment tribunal claim brought by [ insert name ] ], we will soon need to comply with the tribunal’s ‘disclosure’ and ‘inspection’ obligations. Below is a concise outline of what is required during this process, for your reference and information. What is disclosure and inspection? Disclosure means each party to the litigation reveals to the other parties any documents that are relevant to the issues in the case. This is typically done by the parties exchanging schedules or lists of documents they consider to be relevant to the case. Where there are only a small number of documents, the employment tribunal may direct that each party provides copies of the relevant documents straight away, without first producing a list. After...

This Precedent sets out general practical guidance on disclosure within employment tribunal proceedings for information purposes. Your employment solicitor can give tailored advice according to your situation and needs. Disclosure of documents—general principles Papers of various types will typically constitute a major element of the evidence presented in an employment tribunal claim. For justice to be done in the case, there must be clear and fair disclosure. Disclosure is the procedure by which relevant and necessary documents are made available and shown to the other side as part of preparing for the hearing. This prevents unfairness caused by one party having exclusive access to documents, springing late disclosure, cherry-picking, or concealing damaging material. The employment tribunal may require disclosure of documents under its general case management powers, either of its own motion or on an application made by a party. Directions about disclosure are often included in the standard directions issued by tribunals when a claim is commenced (sometimes called automatic directions), and in orders the tribunal may...