The notion of a written opening being exchanged seems to me, to be totally contrary to the core principles of advocacy. Or at least advocacy as I understand it. In fact if it’s been exchanged in writing then what’s the point in articulating it to the tribunal at all, given they have read it?
They could have been taken aback when they first heard or saw the strength of our defensive arguments during the “arguments articulated in detail in correspondence before the trial”. Obviously not once the consideration of evidence began.
To be honest, not really
They included a phrase in their promotional material which referred to “City’s dodgy finances.” They would struggle with that if we sued them. Bit of an own goal. They are usually very careful.
This is how the process works in quasi commercial proceedings of this type and this case. And of course there is also full exchanges of the complaint and the response. There will have e been full written openings with bundle references and written witness evidence followed by cross examination. Then written closings. All part of the advocacy. All especially necessary is such a complex case.
I thought advance disclosure of evidence is routine in most forms of legal hearings including civil and criminal cases. They wouldn’t swap tactics in advance of course.
They swap their entire case and defence. Obviously the hearing itself unfolds against that backdrop but the basis of complaint and response to that complaint are not a secret before a hearing commences.
I’m broadly aware of all that; I repeat, it isn’t advocacy as I view it to submit your submissions or opening (which I guess is a quasi submission) to the tribunal of fact in writing, other than a skeleton.
An opening isn’t evidence.
I think to boil down a case of this complexity to the relatively brief amount of oral advocacy would be sub optimal. Written advocacy is just as important as oral advocacy outside of Hollywood IMO. Surely it’s important to get the facts in play rather than a case to be judged on the oral eloquence of the best barrister. That said it can mean some judges pre-decide a case before anyone steps inside a trial or hearing which I have had too.
Fixed that for you
My head is hurting. It’s 36 degs here in southern spain and not being educated in the finer points of the law World I’m imbibing copious amounts of liquid instilled with alcohol to deaden my headache.
I accept written advocacy has an important role (eg skeletons) and I’d also agree that a hearing of that complexity deviating from the MO you’ve described is going to be suboptimal, and quite frankly an oral opening will have a nugatory impact on the outcome of proceedings like that in any event.
I’ve had a few too!
And I think that’s true of lots of cases in any event.
i remember 2012 when he paid out on utd winning prem, about 6 games to go, had his pants down
