12. Hearsay admissible by statute in civil proceedings

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Common ◽  
Hearsay Rule ◽  
Oral Evidence

Under the common law rule against hearsay, any assertion, other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings, was inadmissible if tendered as evidence of the facts asserted. The Civil Evidence Act 1968 constituted a major assault upon the common law rule in civil proceedings by making provisions for the admissibility of both oral and written hearsay subject to certain conditions. In June 1988 the Civil Justice Review recommended an inquiry by a law reform agency into the usefulness of the hearsay rule in civil proceedings and the machinery for rendering it admissible. The recommendations were put into effect by the Civil Evidence Act 1995. This chapter discusses the admissibility of hearsay under the Civil Evidence Act 1995; safeguards; proof of statements contained in documents; evidence formerly admissible at common law; and Ogden tables.

13. Hearsay admissible by statute in civil proceedings

2020 ◽  
pp. 412-432
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Hearsay Rule ◽  
Oral Evidence ◽  
Law Commission

Under the common law rule against hearsay, any assertion, other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings, was inadmissible if tendered as evidence of the facts asserted. The Civil Evidence Act 1968 constituted a major assault upon the common law rule in civil proceedings by making provisions for the admissibility of both oral and written hearsay subject to certain conditions. In June 1988 the Civil Justice Review recommended an inquiry by a law reform agency into the usefulness of the hearsay rule in civil proceedings and the machinery for rendering it admissible. The subsequent recommendations of the Law Commission were put into effect by the Civil Evidence Act 1995. This chapter discusses the admissibility of hearsay under the Civil Evidence Act 1995; safeguards; proof of statements contained in documents; evidence formerly admissible at common law; and Ogden tables.

18. Hearsay Evidence

2019 ◽  
pp. 337-354
Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Personal Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Hearsay Rule ◽  
Oral Evidence ◽  
Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence in criminal cases most often arises in two situations: if a witness testifies about facts of which he has no personal knowledge because the facts were communicated to the witness by another person who is not in court; and where a witness’ written statement is put before the court because the witness is unable to attend court to give oral evidence. This chapter discusses the general rule of hearsay evidence; identifying hearsay evidence; statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule; hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; hearsay admissible under the preserved common law rules; procedure for admitting hearsay evidence; and hearsay evidence and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950.

19. The doctrine of frustration

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Macdonald ◽  
Ruth Atkins ◽  
Jens Krebs
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
Commercial Purpose ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter investigates the scope of the doctrine of frustration which was developed to deal with cases where events occur after a contract is made which render the agreement illegal, or impossible to perform, or which fundamentally change the nature of the obligations undertaken by the parties. The doctrine operates within strict limits and its use is restricted in cases where, although the commercial purpose of the contract has been drastically affected by unforeseen events, the performance of the contract is still possible. The position under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 and under the common law, including for example, the recent cases of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd and Olympic Airlines SA (in Special Liquidation) v ACG Acquisition XX LLC, are examined, collectively demonstrating how the doctrine currently operates.

18. Hearsay Evidence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Personal Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Hearsay Rule ◽  
Oral Evidence ◽  
Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence in criminal cases most often arises in two situations: if a witness testifies about facts of which he has no personal knowledge because the facts were communicated to the witness by another person who is not in court; and where a witness’ written statement is put before the court because the witness is unable to attend court to give oral evidence. This chapter discusses the general rule of hearsay evidence; identifying hearsay evidence; statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule; hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; hearsay admissible under the preserved common law rules; procedure for admitting hearsay evidence; and hearsay evidence and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950.

Reforming the Law of Evidence in Nigeria

2000 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 128-129
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Evidence

The Nigerian Law Reform Commission has recently published a Report on the Reform of the Evidence Act. This was in response to a government directive to “review and reform our Evidence Act to ensure that its application more effectively facilitates the dispensation of justice in our courts”. The Report notes that the Evidence Ordinance was based on Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence and on the common law of England as it was in 1943. Understandably, the Report recognizes that the law of evidence had become outdated, especially in view of technological advances. As it notes:

scholarly journals Constitutional Mimicry and Common Law Reform in a Rights-Based Post-Colonial Setting: The Case of South Africa and Malawi

2009 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-170
Author(s):  
Sibo Banda
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The South ◽  
Post Colonial ◽  
The Common

AbstractCompetent courts in Malawi must, as courts have done in South Africa, undertake a radical path in order to enhance the common law position of distinct categories of persons. This article discusses judicial appreciation of the common law-changing function of a bill of rights and its associated values, and judicial understanding as to when such a function may be brought into play. The article examines approaches taken by courts in South Africa in determining the circumstances in which the South African Bill of Rights applies to private relationships, when private parties owe each other duties arising out of the Bill of Rights and the scope of a court's authority to amend the common law in that regard. The article projects the debate, analysis and critique of these approaches onto the Malawian legal landscape through a discussion of the tenant worker contracted on the Malawi private estate.

Time for an English Commercial Code?

1997 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 516-536
Author(s):  
Dame Mary Arden
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Commercial Code ◽  
Unique Experience ◽  
The Common ◽  
Systematic Development ◽  
The Law ◽  
Lord Chancellor ◽  
Law Commission

Parliament has imposed on the Law Commission the duty to review the law of England and Wales “with a view to its systematic development and reform, including in particular the codification of [the] law … and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law”. There are a number of points which flow from this. First, as a body which reviews great swathes of the common law to see if they require to be modernised or simplified, the Law Commission has a unique standpoint from which to view the strengths and weaknesses of the common law method. Second, it has unique experience of law reform and the Parliamentary process. Third, in discharge of its functions, it has an interest in seeing that, if codification is appropriate, a recommendation to that effect is made to the Lord Chancellor. It need not be the Law Commission which carries out the recommendation, and indeed the Law Commission could not carry out a project purely of its own initiative.

scholarly journals Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police; [2008] UKHL; 50

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-152
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Exclusive Focus

WHO HAS FIRST CLAIM ON “THE LOYALTY OF THE LAW”?Smith v Chief Constable of the Sussex Police (hereafter Smith) was heard by the House of Lords at the same time as Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle and another because they had two uniting factors. First, they both concerned the recurring question of the ambit of police liability in the situation described by Lord Bingham thus: “…if the police are alerted to a threat that D may kill or inflict violence on V, and the police take no action to prevent that occurrence, and D does kill or inflict violence on V, may V or his relatives obtain civil redress against the police, and if so, how and in what circumstances?”2  Secondly, considering the cases together highlighted the wider issue of the relationship between decisions under the Human Rights Act 1998 (hereafter the HRA) and the development of the common law. The Law Lords embarked on a more extensive examination of these issues in Smith and thus that case will be the exclusive focus of this note.  In addition, the study of Smith raises questions regarding proposals for law reform as well as about judicial perceptions of policy priorities. 

scholarly journals Jurisdiction Clauses in New Zealand Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 631
Author(s):  
Mary Keyes
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
In Trans ◽  
The Common

The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Acts 2010, mirror legislation in New Zealand and Australia, regulate the allocation of jurisdiction in trans-Tasman civil proceedings. The legislation includes provisions dealing with the effects of jurisdiction clauses. This article considers the treatment of jurisdiction clauses under the statutory regime and the common law regime which provides for the effect of jurisdiction clauses that are outside the scope of the legislation, how these regimes differ, and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

scholarly journals Better to Explain or to Testify? The Position of the Accused as a Source of Oral Evidence in a Criminal Trial in a Comparative Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 47-77
Author(s):  
Hanna Kuczyńska
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Different Shapes ◽  
The Common ◽  
Oral Evidence

In this article the position of the accused as a source of personal evidence in three different European legal systems: Poland, Germany, and England, will be presented. This analysis will be oriented to understand the way of functioning of the two different models of giving statements of fact by the accused at a criminal trial. The main difference is that in the common law model of criminal trial the accused may only present evidence by testifying as a witness speaking about what happened, whereas in the continental model the accused gives a specific personal type of evidence (that in the Anglo-Saxon literature is rather described as “oral evidence”) that is known as explanations. From this differentiation several consequences arise: among others, the possibility of presenting untruthful explanations and presenting many versions of events in the continental model which have to be assessed by the judges. At the same time, the same right of the accused to silence and not to give incriminating evidence applies in both models of criminal trial – however, in two different shapes and with different types of limitations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document