Tags

[Edited to remove name. The full transcript is on LexisNexis].

The following is extracted from the judgment of Popplewell J applying Wisniewski:

(10).  Although Mr [X] has left GCL, GCL provided no information, still less evidence, to the effect that he would not assist by giving evidence, and if so explaining why not. His departure from GCL is not of itself an explanation, as is apparent from Mr [Y’s] willingness to provide a statement despite having left the company. Applying the principles identified in Wisniewsky v Central Manchester Healthy Authority [1998] PIQR 324, 340, it is legitimate to draw the inference, that GCL has not called him because it did not think that his evidence would assist its case.

 

 

Advertisements