Home / Resources / Surveillance Evidence – delayed application did not constitute an ambush

Surveillance Evidence – delayed application did not constitute an ambush

17/03/2017

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

Personal Injury
Clinical Negligence
Costs & Litigation Funding

James Arney KC

Call 1992 | Silk 2021

Read more

Search


Menu

Close

Portfolio Builder

Select the practice areas that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)