Surveillance Evidence

Hello and welcome to this webinar on surveillance evidence. My name's Niki Karsa on the purpose of today's webinar is to take a look at the latest position concerning surveillance evidence. Mawr Mawr. We see defendants using surveillance evidence in all sorts of ways in an attempt to reduce the value of the claim. And, of course, now toe argue that perhaps the claim and has been fundamentally dishonest on with all the implications that that may have, whether that has cost implications on the clocks basis or whether it's a Courts Act situation where the whole claim will be wiped out, if you like. If the court finds of fundamental dishonesty on behalf off the claimant now, the contents were going to talk about. I want to look at recent case laws and the case will curb Cara pretty ominous from 2017. I want to just pick up some pointers that come from that case in terms of the court's attitude to applications. The sort of thing that becomes important when you have surveillance evidence as a as a risk, if you like, is that you know when and how cool our applications made. How do the defendants make these applications. How do you find out if you're a claimant? Something of this kind is going on Court discretion. Directions. What role did the experts have to play? We do need to talk about the fundamental dishonesty implications. Let's say on, I think in terms off the way in which the courts will treat applications by defendants to rely on surveillance evidence, we would do well to look at cases like Douglas and O Neill. Well, look at cases like her Leary tunnel craft. Andi, also look at the sort of broad update. I think we could call it that that the courts given in the case of Hayden and Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Trust from 2016. So those are gonna be out about topics if you like for the day we can do no better, I think Then start really with one of the earliest examples off on application by a defendant to ensure that the court will see will accept surveillance evidence that they obtained the case. Of course, Israel in him, because ALS way back to 2001 are concerned. Actually, a young mother claimant is young mother caring for two Children who was the subject of two surveillance operations when her person injury claim was made. Ah, few months apart, the issue really was. Was the defendant argument claim it was shown making all sorts of journeys by car carrying out child care activities? No problem at all on the issue really was. Well, hang on the application by the defendants to rely on video evidence quite close to the trial. What what was that story? The court's view. There was no deliberate delay in disclosure designed to achieve surprise. Remember, this is the case with a sort of famous phrase. Ambush came along. The court didn't take the view that this was an ambush situation. Had it been an ambush situation on part the claim of where the defendant attained the evidence earlier and sat on it, then things might be very different. Secondly, the defendant failed, however, though, to make the application as soon as possible as soon as it was apparent that they would need to do so on. And as we know, you know, making applications. Many applications require that the party making them makes them when it becomes apparent that it was necessarily desirable to make it. They didn't do so. What was the punishment? While the punishment was know, as you might expect, that the evidence was excluded, but simply that the defendants had to pay the costs off the application. We see exactly the same story again. Not in a new case are but the case off Jones on the University of Warrick again, back in 2003. This was a little more challenging because what we have from the defendant's waas ah, couple of episodes of surveillance evidence being taken. But no question the way in which it was obtained, Waas effectively trespassed the enquiry agent gained access to the claimants home without our commission are in this particular case again, the issue is, well, how do we punish the defendant for this transgression? But what will end with the attitude to the surveillance evidence that's being obtained? Firstly, the court took the view that had the evidence being excluded, then it would create a holy undesirable situation. Fresh medical experts would have to be instructed on both sides. The experts had seen the evidence and what do you do about that? Now? The evidence of seen it, the experts have seen it. There's nothing you can do about that. Short of instruct new experts, if the evidence is to be excluded, relevant evidence would have to be concealed from them on. That could result in a dis misdiagnosis. So again, you've got the credibility. If you like him, the integrity of the experts to think about cross examination of the climate would be inappropriately limited. If the defendants weren't able to access the documentation, the surveillance evidence they got put back to the claimant, their cross examination of the came, it would be limited in an unacceptable way. I'm Certainly there was criticism off the defendants, and certainly there was criticism of the way in which the film have been attained. But again, the only punishment, if you like for the defendants in that particular case, was in costs, it wasn't that the film was excluded on. Certainly one of the issues that I think drones does raise this issue is at what point, and we need to pick this up in a moment. Do claimants advisers show film to their clients experts? Now it's interesting that you know, holding back and perhaps not showing the film to the experts at the earliest opportunity. My well seem to be quite a good thing to do. Because, of course, the argument will be if you're the claimant, three evidence is inadmissible. If you've got a proper argument about that, why show it to the experts at this stage? So something we need to think about later in terms of timing in terms off the next case? Slower, if you like. Example what I want to talk about a case called O'Leary on tunnel craft from a few years ago. Now this is a really important case, quite complex in terms of its history, but really important because what we really got here is we got quite a complex story of a claimant. After some significant injuries living elsewhere came and moved to Ireland, I'm being quite difficult to contact. What we have is a defendant who obtained surveillance evidence of the claimant on one of the arguments, by the way, for the claimant was that the injuries were serious and he was pretty much unemployable. Really. A number of recordings were made on their application, I have. Those recordings included was made only 31 days before the trial. Now one of the arguments about the footage from the claimants Part walls? Well, actually, the footage isn't particularly damaging. It doesn't really show me doing anything I didn't tell you I could do on. It's not really any different to any of the claims that I had made. However, the key issue here is proximity to trial on the key issue here is how long the defendants and had the footage in their possession before their application to rely upon it, failure to disclose the material until 31 days before trial, said the court. That's an ambush away, back to rallying him. If you can show information was held by the defendant, not released earlier, and sat on, if you like until quite close proximity to the trial, that's an ambush. The admission off that evidence would lead to the trial being lengthened on almost certainly not being able to proceed on the relevant day already sorted and it big country to the overriding objective of ensuring that a case only used it support appropriate share off the course resources. I think it's a huge interest this case because you're looking back up, Ryland Hume, looking back of Jones and University of Warrick. What we see is the footage was taken some months before it was actually disclosed. So the defendants advisers that had the evidence in their possession but shows and not to rely upon it, uh, the court's decision where video evidence was available, which, according to the defendant, undermine that claim. Its case. To the extent that's going to reduce the award of damages, it would usually be a, said the court in the overall interests of dust Justice to require the defendant should be committed to cross examine the climate and his medical advisers on it. But here comes that Collect the catch as long as it doesn't amount to a trial by ambush on. I think the main message to come from O'Leary is where a defendant has had that evidence in their possession for some time before they make the application to include it there in lies, the problem for the defendants unusual one, and it's you know, there's not many cases in the last few years where the courts actually refused Lee for the defendant. I think you know, there is a little bit more detail about this that we need to pick ups in their extra features of O'Leary that make this position special. Toe o Leary. There's no question that inner Leary, what the parties have done court it done was make directions. And indeed, some months before the evidence came to light a directions hearing before the master are ordered that any application by the defendants to rely on the evidence of enquiry agents or video evidence should be no later than the first of July 2008. So if there was an application, that was the date it was to be made by. It wasn't made by that date on the claimants argument. Waas. Clearly, that was a breach off one of the direct the directions. That's quite important. Secondly, we should take this on board with specific facts of oleary. It's astonishing how often this happens if you do this kind of work. You know, we've all got examples that this having happened, Ah, the defendants were filming the wrong man. There was a period for a few days when the second firm of agents conducted surveillance for a period of about weak, but it was clear that they were watching the wrong man. The DVD footage was off somebody else now. No attempt was made to sort out at footage when it was all disclosed in a lump to the claimant 31 days before trial. And indeed, the evidence was a pretty poor quality. It was dark, exact sink. The editing was poor on. There were no unredacted copies despite Quest being made. It's a very interesting story, I think O'Leary off what it is the defendant may need to do to put themselves in a position where the court just will know, agree and not be prepared to allow that evidence in. It's a fairly big step to exclude it. But clearly the evidence in this case was poor. The defendant's case was that the surveillance footage was inconsistent with the climate's reported physical and psychiatric symptoms. In other words, he had a greater functional ability. Then he'd said on that it wouldn't be a prejudice, art, substantial prejudice towards the claimant if the evidence went in. But it would be enormous prejudice to the defendants, but cause this is a significant difference in the value of the claim. One of the issues that was Kay was that the length of the trial would be considerably different. Were this evidence to be let in, there'd be extra work. The defendant's application, if it's to be approved, would mean an additional four doctors. Lots of surveillance operatives would all need to be added it. There's no question that where you've got experts, as indeed they had in O'Leary would already got in their diaries, the current trial window and the difficulties of changing that any sense that the trial may be impacted. That date of the trial may be impacted. Then you're gonna have if you're a defendant, a position where you are risking not being up to get that evidence in the court took the view, and we looked previous cases. Didn't we looked around. We looked at Jones and saw the court punishing the defendant in costs. In this particular case, the Court of Appeal took the view that pent penalizing the defendant in costs, let's say, would meet practical difficulties by the claimant than the call. But it wouldn't deal with the problem, and it wouldn't be appropriate. Wouldn't be enough to redress the balance of inequality, the defendant's application to introduce those films Waas refused. I think it's really, really important But that case is looked at because it is one of the only cases in recent memory where the courts refused to allow the evidence in and it does have special features. Maybe we can probably see that best by looking at them as Levin Edwards, which came along a little little bit after that, where there was an application by the defendant on the first day off the trial to reduce additional evidence in the form of various DVDs. Some problems for the claimant. The original schedule of losses contain no figures for future loss of earnings. Finally, that was put in. Those numbers were put in some months after it should have been £1.8 million worth of loss on what we see in that case is that, yes, there was a filming off the claim and over a long period of time, and indeed the last bit of filming off the claim was done just before the trial window began. In fact, there are only 18 working days to try A when the last bit of film was actually obtained. Eventually, the defendant's disclosed the film. The latest bit of film was really only a month before the application to disclose on the claim of criticize the defendant for disclosing the material ended making the application council for both polities referred. The judge to O'Leary, you know, argued that in the O Leary case there was a five month delay, with the defendant obtaining the evidence on the defendant disclosing it here, not the same. The claimant received the footage two days after the final segment was shocked. Clearly, this case meant that trial had to be adjourned so close to the start of the trial. But the court decided that both experts, the defendant's experts, have time to view the evidence, and the claimants experts couldn't get up to speed so quickly. However, in this particular case, the court took the view the defendant would be able to rely on that DVD evidence. He said. It would be unsatisfactory to try a case of significant value where evidence to affect the award was excluded. The defendant, if they had excluded, will be significantly prejudiced, not the same for the claimant. It's a trial to be vacated because I can compensate you in costs, said the core. So I think we have a number of pointers coming out of this. Firstly, if the defendant wishes to ensure surveillance can be used a trial, it's important. Once the evidence is obtained by enquiry agents, the defendant takes possession of that film makes a decision about relying on it. Secondly, failure to do so may result in the evidence being excluded. Conversely, of course, early disclosure, coupled with an application to rely upon the evidence, will improve the defendant's prospects off using that film trial. Clearly, the defendant's conduct may be relevant to costs, but whether the film goes in or not, important issue will bay. Whether or not the defendant has sat on that film, has there been delaying the obtaining of it and then the disclosing of it? Claimants, if you suspect your being filmed, smoke the defendant out, try and secure possession of the film on enable you and your experts time to evaluate the evidence on time before trial to respond to the film. Obtain evidence to counter the same. Seek further views from the experts. When the defendant discloses the film, the climate should make absolutely crystal clear that the climate does not accept that they should be used. They don't accept that the film is admissible on the defendant's, then forced to apply for directions further. Don't forget always to challenge the defendant to ensure the unedited film is obtained on the surveillance. Local secured and statements are secured, said everybody claiming, And they're experts can evaluate just how damaging frankly that footage is. Let's take a look at a rather old situation that occurred. We think of surveillance evidence. We think about applications to include surveillance evidence clearly are something that would happen before the trial and should you know, all the examples were given have included. Defendants have made applications before the trial, which seems fairly obvious. Ah, curious thing happened in a case called Owns Noble a few years ago on The curious thing was that, in fact, the defendant's decided that they wanted to obtain evidence. Good include, let's say, evidence, surveillance footage that was taken after the trial. There was a judgment Mr Noble was injured in a road traffic accident on damages of about 3.4 million were awarded to him. Mr Nobles. Injuries were significant on prevented his mobility to a large extent, crutches in a wheelchair. The injuries, it was thought, would preclude him from ever working again, and he would lead assistance with day to day. Living at the story is that the defendants didn't appeal the judgment at the time, and he did it satisfied in full. But it was some months later when the defendants received a call from some neighbors at Mr Noble are telling them that Mr Noble was in fact not was badly injured, as he said, and indeed, some periods of surveillance were carried out over about a six month period are seven different occasions and the argument from the defendant's wars back. The film footage showed that Mr Noble was nowhere near as seriously injured as he had suggested there. Waas procedurally a bit of an issue here. The defendant's decided the appropriate thing to do was to obtain on injunction to freeze the damages they then applied to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time. And interestingly, on any of this is another angle. I think, on the surveillance footage argument, they sort toe have the evidence off this surveillance footage included on the basis that it was in fact new evidence that come to light recently. The principle as you'll remember or note from the commentary and the White book on the topic Off Lad and Marshall 1954 Case I'm. Interestingly, the arguments are from the claimant were that the fresh footage of the film should be admitted, but in fact argued that what the defendants all to do will start a fresh case in fraud, rather than suggesting that the whole case be appealed. Procedurally, it is interesting, actually this one. It's interesting because the parties were really quite different in terms of what they said should happen. The Court of Appeal took the view that the video evidence are presented thought that it might be possible that the judge, having seen that evidence, would find that Mr Noble had deceived the court below. I'm far from income dropped incontrovertible. This is quite an interesting thought. Court decided there were other interpretations off that evidence on the court decided that what should happen Waas There are two competing lines of authority. Mr Owens, with a defendant relied on the lad of martial cases, which suggested fresh evidence probably admitted at the court appeared that it might be admitted on would have an important effect on the trial it should go back for a retrial. Even so, even in the case of Mr Noble and Owens, where the new evidence suggested there was deceit that in fact being practiced interestingly, the court decided the correct thing to do was to remit it for retrial, for the fraud issue to be dealt with by the original trial judge. Our interestingly, in terms of costs, it was a bit of a mess because the court decided it wasn't appropriate to make Mr Noble pay. Mr owns costs of the appeal, our significance found to be guilty of fraud. The right order was that there should be art nolde for costs. In this particular case, this is hugely important. I think this case, because there is a principle of finality, of judgments. Damages are assessed once and for all at the end of the trial. That's how it works in this country. There are lots of reasons for that. One of them, of course, is certainty, so that parties know once the trial has happened, once a decision has been made sure off the appeals process, that actually you know where you stand and there is certainty. Secondly, of course, in the interests of the administration of justice. It has to be the case. The reopening previous decisions is just never going to bay. Ah, good way to proceed. And it's certainly not in the interests of the administration off justice to do it that way. A couple of things from this case, I think, become important the principle of introducing new evidence under the lad on Marshall Grounds and as a safety check out commentary in the White Book. This is still the appropriate way. The principles are still good if you have new and fresh evidence to be introduced. Basically, three principles, really is the evidence such that it wouldn't have been obtained without readers reasonable diligence for use at trial. All the defendants argument here was, of course, they had no idea that the climate was deceitful on that. They couldn't know that the evidence needed to be obtained. So yes, even due diligence would have meant they couldn't obtain earlier. Secondly, the evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the rest of the case, though not necessarily decisive. And again, surveillance evidence will always be that kind of evidence it might have an important influence on the trial, but it's no in controversial on then. Thirdly, the evidence must be such that it's presumed. Presumably, let's say, to be believed, Andi must be apparently credible again, though no incontrovertible. So I think we see from that case, and I think those principles are always going to be relevant when it comes to any attempt by defendant to include, let's call it fresh evidence after the end of the trial. You know, when is it over? When can you tell the claimant things are over? Well, even after the trial, it's not necessarily the case that new matters might not come to light on. In this very unusual circumstance, the defendants may have a successful argument for introducing fresh evidence long after the trial has actually occurred. I still think it's unlikely that the court would decide it's what happened very often, but it's a risk for what it's worth. The postscript to this case is, of course, that the call on the retrial decided that Mr Noble should keep all his original damages on the explanation for his better than expected recovery. Was he worked that he'd worked particularly hard at his rehabilitation. Whether or not we see many more of these kinds of applications remains to be seen, but it is relevant on worth considering that this this is a risk. I think Let's take a look a case of Douglas and O Neill, because it's really an issue of trying to look at what the courts attitudes are to these applications. Person injury claim Defendant Obtained Surveillance DVD evidence in respect to the claimant is a defendant entitled not to disclose it until the climate produces assigned witness statement are. In this particular case, there was some considerable delay in the claimants witness statements being served, in fact, 15 months unbelievably later than originally directed. And in fact, only three months before the trial, however, the defendant delayed disclosing the DVD footage until after the claimants witness statement had been served. The DVD evidence has not been disclosed in this case until the trial was imminent, but it had been disclosed at the first reasonable opportunity, so there was no attempted court decided to ambush the claimant. It's interesting. I think, that the reason for the late disclosure, if you like of that DVD evidence was, was in a sense that the claimants door on the claimant was in default off court directions. And Matt was why the defendants were forced. If you like to disclose their evidence late, a couple of things also from this case, I think it's worth just reminding ourselves. You know the court saying, Look, surveillance seven. It's easy, legitimate weapon for the defendant on It's certainly a tape or a DVD is a document is not a piece of witness evidence. So under 31.6 of the civil procedurals our parties discuss, required to disclose all documents upon which it relies. But we know, of course, that DVDs are privileged. Documents on only have to be disclosed in their entirety if the applicant, in this case, the defendant, chooses toe waive privilege in respect off. So the court took the view that that is the place off this kind of evidence. It isn't a statement, a such it's it's not a piece of witness evidence. It is in fact, a document under 31.6 latest decision and something I think we need to look at to get a sense of where we're at in terms of the course attitudes to these applications. In Hayden and Maidstone, we get the court making observations on how to deal with the issue of the defendants. Late Application to Submit Surveillance Evidence Again The usual story intended to counter exaggerated or suspect person injury claims. This by the name of the case. You can tell it's a clinic case where £850,000 is being sought by the claimant Now. In this particular case, there were a bit of an issue about the dates in which the experts had seen this evidence. The defendant's obtained the evidence Surveillance evidence about mid February March 2016 close to the very close to the start of the trial window. They Clements list has got the edited video footage without any warning over a bank holiday weekend on the climate, Sisters asked the trust sisters to confirm that please don't show the material to your experts until the courts decided on permission as to whether you can rely upon it. But the defendant's expert had already seen it on already produced supplementary report about it. By the time of the hearing to challenge admissibility the claimant on her pain expert had seen and commented on the footage. But the other experts had not. The trust was relying on that case of Douglas and O Neill that we just looked at and said there had been no attempt to take on very advantage and it was appropriate. The defendant had the opportunity to introduce that evidence even though it was obtained late. Let's take a look of the decision difficult for an expert had seen surveillance evidence, said the core to put that out his or her mind make no reference to it. But that couldn't be a reason for a court to feel obliged to admit it. And they referred to Douglas and only, um, it's interesting that the court took the view that experts are familiar with the need not refer to the content of any without prejudice discussions on that they should. Then when they get forbidden material that they actually see they need to, as judges need to sometimes put it out of their mind. Given the fact that the claimants listers had sent the trust's surveillance footage to their own expert, it's understandable that the court took the view that because of the timing, the poor claimant considered they've been ambushed. You'll see, in this particular case, the same phrases used from Roland him. Is this an ambush? The the answer to that is that well, yes, we're going to let the evidence in, but we're going to make you pay costs defendant as your punishment. A really significant factor in deciding whether to go along with that late application was the time when the defendant should reasonably commission such evidence. And we talked about the fact that in O Leary Tunnel craft having an order where a by which date provision? Which would you know? This is the date by which you need to disclose any surveillance footage. If you obtain, it might well have made a considerable difference. Now that might be set Claimants advisers asking for an order of that kind. It might be the court itself who ought to be making directions with those kind of provision in them. So the court could take a view as to whether the defendant had disclosed that evidence late with nearer and nearer to the trial it became, said the core, the less likely was the court to agree that the defendants could rely on evidence off this kind. Let's just take a look at one reason why the court would not have been impressed with the defendant's argument. The trust's argument that because the surveillance evidence was out, if you like it was disclosed, it was right to admit it was, said, the court deeply unattractive. So to a seed, it could be seen as rewarding Paul litigation behavior. So I think just the fact that it's there and it's out it's been disclosed will never be enough for the defendants to have argued that the evidence should be included. However, in this particular case, the court took the view that the interests of the administration of justice meant that the evidence should be considered. I'm certainly This is the case where the court makes it clear that it might be sensible for everybody to direct their minds to the possibility off a direction dealing with the date by which this kind of evidence ought to be disclosed and that it would make ah, big difference why my A defendant's application not be granted. Okay, Well, under the rail principle, it has to be shown that the evidence would substantially reduce the award of damages. How well cases like Cara Pretty Honest and Kent on Sussex loft conversions from last year suggests that one of the reasons might be the argument that, in fact, the video footage that you have obtained, I might suggest that the climate had in fact reached a reasonable recovery level about two years earlier than the climate had suggested in all his statements. So the present condition couldn't be attributed to the original index accident on the defendant wouldn't be responsible for the bulk of the injuries in the in the last two years. Prior to the trial, it was dishonesty. The defendant argued on the part of Kleiman, but clearly the amount of time that the defendant would have to compensate claimant for was significantly reduced by the video evidence. So one basis on which the defendant might argue that the footage should be included is that it would substantially reduce the award of damages by reducing the period of time, the claim it's been suffering. The court will not accept the evidence where it amounts to an ambush. We've seen that endlessly on ambush for those purposes as we saw wars defined by Judge Colander in Douglas and O Neill saying The following thing in my judgment, the issue of ambush comes to this are the circumstances in which the evidence is disclosed such that the claimant has a fair opportunity to deal with it. Or was the time or circumstances of the disclosure such that the court should use its case management powers to prevent the defendant from relying on it? Let's look up some tips and tactics wherever. Whenever surveillance evidence in the form of a film of disclosed is disclosed, defendants need to be obliged, have written statements signed in accordance with the civil procedurals. To prove that evidence remember, the surveillance evidence is a document and it needs to be proved by the people who obtained it. The defendant should disclose that witness statement at the time of the exchange of witness evidence. We know the evidence itself. Film is not witness evidence, but the witness evidence will have a date by which is to be disclosed and you would expect to see statements supporting it to be disclosed the same time as the date for exchange off. Witness evidence on the court will have to consider if it's late, how disruptive it will be to allow such evidence in no doubt, most surveillance evidence. Late acceptance will have a disruptive effect on the timetable. There's no question about that. The experts will have to view it instructions to be taken from the Kliman joint discussions, so the timetable is liable to be interrupted. Climate should consider directions. We saw this in earlier. It's so important. Consider getting an order, a direction for surveillance evidence and a date by which it is it to be disclosed. You're not talking out of school. Everybody knows surveillance evidence is a reality. Nothing wrong with ensuring that some kind of direction dealing with latest date for disclosure. Climate should always seek an order obliging defendants to disclose that surveillance evidence foot as well as photographic evidence. Defendants should be required to disclose those statements from those who've taken the evidence on those witnesses and may well have to be cross examined. As a result. We wanting statements and then if it transpires, that the disclosure of surveillance evidence is going to disrupt the trial, that an appropriate application might need to be made to the court depending on whether the defendant should be allowed to rely on that evidence. What we can see is that the courts approached to surveillance evidence is going to be significantly influence by the approach of the parties to litigation. If a climate could demonstrate unjustifiably delay on part of defendants for example, like O Leary on the claimants not responsible for the delay, then there's less chance of the defendant being successful. And having the evidence included. The accuracy of quantum statements is vital. Phrases expressed in the absolute should always be avoided. You know, it's really the inconsistency, isn't it? Off surveillance evidence with a statement of case that can be most damaging on, perhaps end up with the claimant having proceedings for contempt. Look at the phrasing was being used. Think about whether the climate really means they never have written the whole since the accident. Or do they mean they've written one less or rarely upon receipt of the evidence? Always argue, if you're claiming that the authenticity of the evidence is not admitted on, I think really in terms of the case of Douglas, you know, problems as we saw proclaiming practitioners the claimants quantum statement should not be delayed. It is the claim is going to find themselves in great difficulty, arguing that that surveillance evidence should be excluded when their own evidence is late. It has an important role to play. There's no question about ACN. If it exposes fraud, that's important, but it will remain controversial. We know, of course, that the Criminal Justice and Courts Act that provision that provides in Section 57 any claim that the claimants and talked to damages in but the court satisfied on balance of probabilities. The claim has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the claim. It must dismiss the entirety of the climb unless satisfied. The claim of would suffer substantial injustice. As a result. There's no question about it that that provision clearly intends to to give the defendant in a claim on opportunity to win, never mind the merits off the claim. Clearly, there is no reciprocal arrangement when you've got a dishonest defendant who behaves in a dishonest manner in defense of a claim. But that's provision in the act means that the stakes are high for this kind of evidence. Hope that webinar covered some useful points on you got some useful information out there. Thank you very much for listening