The Rules of Evidence

To prove any dispute there are rules of evidence vital to any dispute and proving your case. Evidence is critical in any court action and adjudications and arbitrations. The rules of evidence in arbitrations often take the same rules as the civil courts in the seat of the arbitration. The rules of evidence set the limits to which evidence can be presented within a dispute. Without enough evidence, the action is likely to fail; therefore, the rules of evidence are vital when assessing whether to begin an action or not. Without enough evidence, the court cannot, and will not, grant a party a remedy. Indeed, the rules of evidence are crucial when assessing whether action should be raised. This blog will offer a high-level overview of the UK's rules of evidence.

Evidence is the information that a court or a tribunal will use to decide on the facts it believes. There are various forms of evidence that a party may produce in support of its case. These are catalogued into three main types: real, documentary and testimony (oral).

Real evidence is physical evidence that can be produced in court and used by the judge or jury to decide. Such evidence could include photographs, part of a piece of machinery or equipment, a document, or videotapes. An example is the trial of the persons accused of the Lockerbie Bombing. After a delay to make the entrance bigger, the entire re-constructed luggage hold was brought into court and presented as real evidence. Where a party chooses not to produce a piece of real evidence, this could endanger his case due to the effect of the best evidence rule (see below).

Documentary Evidence is described in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 as anything in which information of any description is recorded. In most cases, it will be apparent if the Evidence is Real or Documentary. An audio tape is probably classed as a documentary production, while a videotape is a piece of real evidence.

Oral evidence, sometimes known as testimony, is evidence spoken in court from the witness box under oath.

The Burden of Proof is the mechanism that decides who has to prove what. Suppose a party bears the burden of proof. In that case, it is their responsibility to verify the point in question, not for the opposing party to prove it didn't happen. Generally speaking, it is the party that brings the claim with the burden of proof; however, within that, there can be subpoints that the party who relies on a fact must prove.

Connected to the burden of proof is the standard of proof. This mechanism informs the party who bears the burden and to what extent they must prove the essential facts to discharge their burden. The UK civil cases standard is that the crucial points must be established on the balance of probabilities. Lord Denning, in the case of Miller v Minster of Pensions 1947, defined the balance of probabilities as "If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say 'we think it more probable than not, the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal it is not."

For evidence to be considered within a case, it has to be admissible; if it is inadmissible, it will be disallowed and not considered when deciding the case. The foundation for the rule against admitting evidence is usually either one or the other following reasons. The first reason relates to the fairness of the situation. Where evidence has been obtained illegally, the evidence may be ruled inadmissible. The other reason is that some evidence is regarded as irrelevant to the issues in dispute; hence with the limited court or tribunal time, the evidence would not be heard.

The best evidence rule requires that a party produce the best evidence available to their particular case; otherwise, other evidence of fact may be inadmissible if the best evidence is not provided where the best proof will concern a document the original should be provided, not a copy of the paper, where an original is not provided secondary evidence from the person who wrote the manuscript may be deemed inadmissible.

The content of this blog is intended for information only and is not an alternative for legal advice. Velocity Dispute Management accepts no responsibility for the actions of another party as a result of this blog or the content of any third party source which this blog refers.