(4) The court will give permission under paragraph (3) only if it considers there is good reason not to confine the evidence of the witness to the contents of his witness statement.” Unlike rule 32.10, this is not a case where a sanction is imposed, and therefore not a case where relief from sanction must be sought. “(3) A witness giving oral evidence at trial may, with the permission of the court (a) amplify his witness statement and (b) give evidence in relation to new matters which have arisen since the witness statement was served on the other parties. In substance, and I think Mr Sutcliffe QC for Chedington accepted this, this is really an application under rule 32.5(3), (4), which provide that: She has made and served witness statements, and she is being called in respect of them. This is because Ms Dagnoni is already a witness in this case. However, as I have already pointed out, during the course of the short argument that I heard, t his is not really an application under rule 32.10 at all, even though it is framed in that way.The judge held that this was not an application under CPR 32.10 but under 30.5(3), (4) THE RELEVANT RULE WHEN A WITNESS STATEMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SERVED In particular, it deals with how much use Ms Brake’s son, Tom, made of the Cottage, the presence of bed-linen and towels in the Cottage, the presence or absence of food in the Cottage and (the one point of exception referred to) the status of the shower in the Cottage. Subject to one point, it simply provides further detail on existing matters. The third witness statement of Ms Dagnoni does not deal, so far as I can see, with any new subject matter (in a broad sense.The judge observed it did not really deal with new material, except to a limited degree. The witness statement related to the occupation of a cottage. THE CONTENTS OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS The application was opposed by the claimants. In long-running litigation the defendant applied for permission to adduce an additional witness statement from a witness who had already given two statements. We could not have a system in which parties were constantly serving further witness statements on each other, responding to evidence that had just been given.

“Of course, it is natural for litigants to want in some way to respond to evidence given in court by putting in further evidence. In Brake & Ors v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd (New Witness Statement) EWHC 2882 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews refused an application for permission to adduce an additional witness statement.

Never ending sketch trial