Summary
The claimant, Mr Wall, was injured in a road traffic accident which occurred in France on 14th July 2010. The claimant sought compensation from the car diver’s French insurer, Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances. There was no dispute as to the jurisdiction and defendant’s liability.
On 21st May, the English court rendered a judgment for the claimant, stating that damages are to be assessed.
On 30th October 2012, Master Cook order a trial on a preliminary issue of “evidence and procedure” within Article 1(3).
The High Court judge held that the number of expert of evidence was an issue of procedure. Mr Justice Tugendhat the following observations:
"16 Lord Woolf no doubt had in mind that some practices in the common law States are unknown in most civil law States. Rules of evidence also differ widely. Practices specific to common law States include an obligation upon litigants to disclose documents which adversely affect their own case or support another party’s case ( CPR r.31,6(b) ), the preparation and exchange of witness statements for use at trial ( CPR r.31,6(b) ), and the cross examination of witnesses, both witnesses of fact and expert witnesses.
17 The adversarial procedures in common law States are designed to assist the court to arrive at the truth. But they require more work to be done by litigants and their lawyers (often with correspondingly less work to be done by the judge) than is required under most civil law inquisitorial systems. The result is that the direct costs of litigation which have to be borne by the parties are much higher in the common law States. This is so, even when the comparison is between a civil law and a common law State where rates of remuneration charged by lawyers are at comparable levels. On the other hand, in the common law States fewer judges are required, and fewer cases are actually tried, instead of being settled. These facts may help to keep down the cost to the common law States of providing for the administration of justice. Having regard to the differences of procedure, it is not surprising that outcomes are different, even in those cases where there is no significant difference between the provisions of the substantive laws of the States in question.” [16-17]
The High Court’s judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.