A judgment from Leeds High Court
Discussion
Based on the opening paragraphs, you may decide you want to read the rest (it is only 20 points)
A PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION
His Honour Judge Davy QC, before whom this matter was heard at first instance, bore witness to a festival of mendacity. The judge warned the parties that he intended to send a transcript of his judgment together with the case papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions. My inquiries have revealed that, in the event, this was not done. That is an omission which this Court intends to put right.
INTRODUCTION
I will keep this short. The claimant and the three defendants are brothers. Their father had developed a business empire the assets of which included a number of properties. After the death of his father, it was the second defendant who assumed de facto control of the relevant businesses the details of the operation and profitability of which were but lightly touched upon in the tax returns of the defendants.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/1258.h...
A PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION
His Honour Judge Davy QC, before whom this matter was heard at first instance, bore witness to a festival of mendacity. The judge warned the parties that he intended to send a transcript of his judgment together with the case papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions. My inquiries have revealed that, in the event, this was not done. That is an omission which this Court intends to put right.
INTRODUCTION
I will keep this short. The claimant and the three defendants are brothers. Their father had developed a business empire the assets of which included a number of properties. After the death of his father, it was the second defendant who assumed de facto control of the relevant businesses the details of the operation and profitability of which were but lightly touched upon in the tax returns of the defendants.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/1258.h...
See also Elizabeth Gloster (now Lady Justice Gloster) in Berezovsky v Abramovich 2012] EWHC 2463 (Comm)
"I found Mr. Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes. At times, the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events. On occasions he tried to avoid answering questions by making long and irrelevant speeches, or by professing to have forgotten facts which he had been happy to record in his pleadings or witness statements. He embroidered and supplemented statements in his witness statements, or directly contradicted them. He departed from his own previous oral evidence, sometimes within minutes of having given it. When the evidence presented problems, Mr. Berezovsky simply changed his case so as to dovetail it in with the new facts, as best he could. He repeatedly sought to distance himself from statements in pleadings and in witness statements which he had signed or approved, blaming the "interpretation" of his lawyers, as if this somehow diminished his personal responsibility for accounts of the facts, which must have been derived from him and which he had verified as his own."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2012/2463...
"I found Mr. Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes. At times, the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events. On occasions he tried to avoid answering questions by making long and irrelevant speeches, or by professing to have forgotten facts which he had been happy to record in his pleadings or witness statements. He embroidered and supplemented statements in his witness statements, or directly contradicted them. He departed from his own previous oral evidence, sometimes within minutes of having given it. When the evidence presented problems, Mr. Berezovsky simply changed his case so as to dovetail it in with the new facts, as best he could. He repeatedly sought to distance himself from statements in pleadings and in witness statements which he had signed or approved, blaming the "interpretation" of his lawyers, as if this somehow diminished his personal responsibility for accounts of the facts, which must have been derived from him and which he had verified as his own."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2012/2463...
Judges, being quite often highly educated, very well read, broadly cultured, and worldly wise are often droll and witty, although some of them can be dull. The best barristers are often deliberately hilarious in Court, although it is important to assess first whether the Judge likes jokes at all, or only likes his or her own jokes.
Breadvan72 said:
I love this so much. My current job involves a lot of this, but with a few dozen noughts added on to the end of the money numbers, and the disputants aren't in Leeds. I am going to frame this judgment.
It is a shame the proceedings from the original trial aren’t easily available onlinewc98 said:
that was my favourite line of many in there. nice to see a sense of (very dry) humour where i wouldn't expect it.
Why not? Dry humour is very much a thing in many courts. There is a worrying trend for Judges to be plodders these days, but the best Judges still have nimble minds, and often see the funny side of their work. Litigation is the Theatre of Blood and Cruelty, and so humour is essential.Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 27th May 13:04
Roger Irrelevant said:
Breadvan72 said:
See also Elizabeth Gloster (now Lady Justice Gloster) in Berezovsky v Abramovich 2012] EWHC 2463 (Comm)
"I found Mr. Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes. At times, the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events. On occasions he tried to avoid answering questions by making long and irrelevant speeches, or by professing to have forgotten facts which he had been happy to record in his pleadings or witness statements. He embroidered and supplemented statements in his witness statements, or directly contradicted them. He departed from his own previous oral evidence, sometimes within minutes of having given it. When the evidence presented problems, Mr. Berezovsky simply changed his case so as to dovetail it in with the new facts, as best he could. He repeatedly sought to distance himself from statements in pleadings and in witness statements which he had signed or approved, blaming the "interpretation" of his lawyers, as if this somehow diminished his personal responsibility for accounts of the facts, which must have been derived from him and which he had verified as his own."
Appoint this man Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union when David Davis packs it in - nobody would notice the difference! "I found Mr. Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes. At times, the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events. On occasions he tried to avoid answering questions by making long and irrelevant speeches, or by professing to have forgotten facts which he had been happy to record in his pleadings or witness statements. He embroidered and supplemented statements in his witness statements, or directly contradicted them. He departed from his own previous oral evidence, sometimes within minutes of having given it. When the evidence presented problems, Mr. Berezovsky simply changed his case so as to dovetail it in with the new facts, as best he could. He repeatedly sought to distance himself from statements in pleadings and in witness statements which he had signed or approved, blaming the "interpretation" of his lawyers, as if this somehow diminished his personal responsibility for accounts of the facts, which must have been derived from him and which he had verified as his own."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff