KB-2023-000278 - [2025] EWHC 2536 (KB)

There is no issue in this case about the timing of service of the surveillance evidence, in terms of ambush or the imperilment of any trial date. As I have already indicated, the criticisms of the surveillance evidence fall into four main categories with, the Claimant says, numerous examples of misfeasance within each category. To make the evaluative decision as to whether the probative value of such evidence is outweighed by any prejudice, it is necessary for the Court to address at least some of those criticisms, albeit neither necessary nor desirable to consider them all in detail.

For the purposes of the hearing, the Defendant has provided seven witness statements from employees, or former employees, of TSG, as follows:

I have read those statements but have obviously not heard any live evidence from them, nor have they been the subject of cross-examination at this stage.