[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Neal v Jones (t/a Jones Motors) [2002] EWCA Civ 604 (19 April 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/604.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 604

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO RELY ON
FURTHER EVIDENCE AND PERMISSION TO
AMEND APPELLANT'S NOTICES
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO RELY ON FURTHER EVIDENCE
APPEAL FROM ORDER OF MR RECORDER TACKABERRY QC
(Sitting as a High Court Judge)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday 19th April 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: We make an order that the evidence is admitted subject to the condition that Miss Tedstone appears at this court to be questioned on her witness statement. We admit the evidence of Mr Neal. We give permission to him to file a further statement in response to Miss Tedstone's two statements on or before 10th May. Is that time enough?
2. MR COOKSLEY: Yes.
3. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: We do not allow paragraphs 6 to 9 of Miss Tedstone's first witness statement or paragraph 8 of her second statement to be put in. Similarly, without going into the detail, we do not allow any comparable evidence about what happened to the damages which appears in Mr Neal's first statement to be put in evidence. We direct that the case be re-listed before a three-judge court, including Lord Justice Brooke, and preferably including Sir Christopher Staughton, on the first open day after 1st June; estimated time, two days.
4. We order both Miss Tedstone and Mr Neal to attend to be questioned on their statements.
5. The costs of this hearing are the costs in the appeal.
6. We also allow in the video. This means that we are admitting the evidence of Mr Neil although features of that evidence will no longer be relevant - Mr Parrott, the video and Miss Tedstone; and Mr Neal on the other side.
7. I do repeat what I said about the hope that the parties may consider mediation in relation to this matter. I know mediation is a comparatively new art form and it is not usually thought to be particularly suitable for personal injury cases but the recent research report by Professor Hazel Genn indicates that it is succeeding now in areas of litigation where it was not expected to succeed two or three years ago. Given the admitted damage to Mr Neal's powers of concentration and the pain he is suffering, I would hope that the parties may be able to reach a financial settlement of this unhappy dispute without the need for a further hearing in this court. That is just a hope and certainly not a direction.