Legal Articles

Can you prevent a witness from meeting with the other side?

Home / Knowledge base / Can you prevent a witness from meeting with the other side?

Posted by Gemma Carson on 17 June 2013

Gemma Carson - Head of Commercial Disputes and Litigation
Gemma Carson Partner - Head of Dispute Resolution

An often quoted rule in litigation proceedings is “there is no property in a witness”. Put simply, just because one party to proceedings has taken a statement from a witness does not prevent the other party from also seeking to do so. In Versloot Dredging v HDI Gerling, the Commercial Court had to consider how this rule applied to a witness who had been engaged in a technical capacity by the defendant in relation to the claim.

Mr Gravendeel was engaged by the defendant to investigate the cause of casualties on a shipping vessel and the extent of loss. He inspected the vessel and reported back to the defendant’s underwriters. He prepared two reports (which were disclosed) and a short witness statement. The claimant wished to interview Mr Gravendeel without representatives of the defendant being present. 

It appears that Mr Gravendeel was initially willing to meet with the claimant but sought confirmation from the defendant’s solicitors that he was able to do so. The defendant indicated that he should not do so, on the grounds that he had given technical input in relation to the claim. The defendant subsequently suggested to the claimant that they could put questions to Mr Gravendeel through the defendant’s solicitors or meet with Mr Gravendeel with the defendant’s solicitors present. The claimant wanted to meet with Mr Gravendeel without any representative of the defendant being present and sought an order from the court that the defendant was in contempt of court in advising Mr Gravendeel not to meet with the claimant. The key issue at court was whether the defendant’s position was reasonable on the basis that Mr Gravendeel might know confidential or privileged information as a result of meetings he had with the defendant and its experts.

The judge re-affirmed the position that any witness could be summoned to appear at trial. However, he stated that the position before trial was as follows:

  • Generally a witness could not be compelled to provide assistance. He could make his own choice.
  • A witness before trial would be subject to his duties of confidentiality and both before and at trial would be bound not to disclose any privileged information.
  • It was not a contempt of court to tell a witness he may not reveal information which is truly privileged or confidential.

The judge concluded that a party could be in contempt of court if they applied pressure on a witness not to meet with the other side or indicated it would be wrong to do so. The witness should be clear that it is their own choice. 

However, in this case, it was acceptable for the defendant to inform Mr Gravendeel of its concerns in relation to privilege/confidentiality and the defendant was not in contempt. The decision would be for Mr Gravendeel to take on whether he was prepared to meet with the claimant’s solicitors and the basis on which he would be prepared to do so.

About the author

Gemma Carson

Partner - Head of Dispute Resolution

Gemma specialises in commercial litigation and has a wealth of experience in dealing with all types of commercial contract dispute.

Gemma Carson

Gemma specialises in commercial litigation and has a wealth of experience in dealing with all types of commercial contract dispute.

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
How can we help?
01926 732512