CL-2022-000676 - [2025] EWHC 2486 (Comm)

The trial has been conducted over 13 days of court time. As matters transpired evidence on many of the issues was rather less lengthy than had been anticipated at the time even of the PTR and the time set down for trial erred on the side of generosity.

In line with this Court’s practice, the parties were invited to give active consideration to providing opportunities within trial for meaningful junior advocacy. That invitation was responded to in an exemplary fashion, with all junior counsel being offered a chance to call or to cross examine witnesses in the course of the trial. Notably, for example, a number of the less contentious factual witnesses were called and cross examined by junior counsel: Mr Horkan and Mr Reid (Sampson/Cukier), Mr Bates (O’Neill /Cukier), Ms Naeem (Sampson/Breslin). Further excellent courteouly probing cross examinations of Dr Williams and Dr Popovic were conducted by Mr Cukier and Mr Sampson respectively.

Owing to the nature of the issues and the absence of factual evidence from the Defendant’s side, it is best to consider the evidence in situ – in relation to the issues to which it was relevant. However in summary all of the witnesses in this case, factual or expert, were honest witnesses who were in my assessment doing their best to assist the court to resolve a rather unusual case.