News & Resources

Surveillance Evidence – delayed application did not constitute an ambush

17th March 2017

Acting on behalf of the Defendant insurers, James Arney successfully argued that notwithstanding delays in disclosing other surveillance footage until 2 months before a trial window, it was in the interest of justice to allow the Defendant to rely on footage disclosed 8 months previously, suggesting that the Claimant was significantly more capable than he had reported. The trial window, scheduled for just 5 weeks after the application was heard, was vacated in order to do justice in the case, and avoid potential overcompensation.  The penalty for late disclosure was that only the claimant could rely on the later footage, as well as in costs.

Hicks v Rostas Lawtel





Related Barristers

James Arney

James Arney
Year of Call: 1992