[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Saha v Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine [2013] EWHC 1646 (QB) (Case Management Hearing 9 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1646.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 1646 (QB)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		Case Management Hearing 9th May 2013

Mr Justice Jeremy Baker:

1. This matter came before me for a case management hearing on 9^th May 2013. On that date I made various orders for the progression of the case and adjourned consideration of the position of the evidence of Dr Yoshida.
2. On 13^th May 2013 those instructed on behalf of the defendant gave a written notice to the claimant in accordance with CPR Part 33.2 (1) (b) of their intention to rely on the evidence of Dr Yoshida. That evidence being contained in a witness statement from him dated 10^th May 2013.
3. On 17^th May 2013 the Court received an email from the claimant indicating that the evidence of Dr Yoshida is to be disputed by her and setting out some of the matters which were required to be explored in cross-examination.
4. Although this email does not say so in terms, the claimant being a litigant in person, it is understood that it comprises an application under CPR 33.4 (1) for permission by the claimant to call Dr Yoshida to be cross-examined on the contents of his witness statement. Furthermore, as it is known that Dr Yoshida is resident in Japan, it is also assumed that this comprises an application pursuant to CPR 32.3 to allow Dr Yoshida to give evidence through a video link.
5. On 21^st May 2013 the Court received a letter from the defendants setting out their opposition to the claimant's applications under CPR 33.4 (1) and CPR 32.3.
6. Inevitably at this stage the Court only has limited information upon which to base its decision as to whether to grant permission to the claimant for her to be able to call Dr Yoshida to be cross-examined on his witness statement. However, having read the various court documents in this case together with such other witness statements that are available, it is apparent that the evidence of Dr Yoshida is likely to be of considerable significance in this case. Indeed in my judgment it is of sufficient importance that I should give permission to the claimant to call him to be cross-examined during the course of the trial. Dr Yoshida being a fellow member of Dr Soldati's research team and as such had first hand experience both of the claimant's conduct and that of Dr Soldati over a significant period of time.
7. In my judgment given the caring and professional responsibilities that Dr Yoshida has in Japan, it will be unreasonable to expect him to attend at the trial in person. However, neither these responsibilities nor the time differences involved are in my judgment sufficient obstacles to prevent him being called at the trial to be cross-examined albeit by means of video-link. I therefore give permission to the claimant under CPR 33.4 (1) to call Dr Yoshida to be cross- examined on the contents of his statement, this being by video link pursuant to CPR 32.3.
8. The claimant should understand that as she has been given permission both to call Dr Yoshida to be cross-examined and for that to be conducted by video link, that it will be her responsibility to make the necessary arrangements for this to be done.