In the ongoing Interflora v M&S Adwords saga, the Court of Appeal has rejected for the second time evidence from witnesses who responded to a survey.In doing so, it has emphasised its robust guidance
In the ongoing Interflora v M&S Adwords saga, the Court of Appeal has rejected for the second time evidence from witnesses who responded to a survey.
In doing so, it has emphasised its robust guidance that a judge should not permit evidence of this kind unless he is satisfied that: (a) the evidence is likely to be of REAL value; and (b) the likely value of the evidence justifies the cost. Evidence has no value if it is obtained through leading questions or if the witness statements themselves do not accurately record the spontaneous responses to the questions raised.
The Court thought one question, in particular, led the witnesses to speculate about something they had not thought about before. The Court also disagreed with Mr Justice Arnold that the weight of the evidence should be evaluated at the trial.
In doing so, it has emphasised its robust guidance that a judge should not permit evidence of this kind unless he is satisfied that: (a) the evidence is likely to be of REAL value; and (b) the likely value of the evidence justifies the cost. Evidence has no value if it is obtained through leading questions or if the witness statements themselves do not accurately record the spontaneous responses to the questions raised.
The Court thought one question, in particular, led the witnesses to speculate about something they had not thought about before. The Court also disagreed with Mr Justice Arnold that the weight of the evidence should be evaluated at the trial.