Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Witness statement should not have been ruled inadmissible by judge in Commercial Court
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court allows appeal from High Court, and: a) determines that the trial judge should not have deferred the hearing of a"screen scraping" case in the Commercial Court where he had ruled certain evidence inadmissible and the plaintiff had indicated an intention to appeal that ruling; and b) the trial judge had erred in ruling the evidence in a witness statement inadmissible, notwithstanding that it had been delivered in breach of a direction of the court and without proper explanation, on the grounds that it had been delivered three months before the date of hearing, and that it was clearly relevant to the issues to be determined in the case.
McKechnie J (nem diss): Use of web site by airline - access to web site subject to terms and conditions - prohibition on use of automated system or software - prohibition on use of site for onward provision of flight information to third parties - "screen scraping" - use of screen scraping to sell airline flights on other web site - commercial list - orders made by HIgh Court - delivery of witness statements - supplemental witness statements delivered out of time - contained hearsay evidence - ruled inadmissible at trial (McGovern J) - lack of explanation for failure to include statement in original statement - no consent or leave sought or obtained - trial deferred until matter disposed of on appeal - acquiescence - estoppel - whether ruling inconsistent with constitution and Convention on Human Rights - whether to apply Commercial Court rules in rigid manner - issues - whether trial judge should have admitted evidence - whether he should have continued trial in absence of disputed evidence.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
