Report comment

May I put in a respectful word for the judge?

There are many reasons why judgments may be getting longer - but, perhaps, not prolix.

Evidence. The first is the ubiquity of emails, Twitter, face book etc as a cascade of chatter, without the witness statements, letters, formal documents etc etc.. The second is the complexity of arguments deployed, with the addition of experts in every topic known, or suspected, to man. Trial bundles thousands of pages in length.

Then the issues raised are more numerous/imaginative. And it is no use the judge deciding that one is to be decided and ignoring the rest. The appeal will rightly point out those issues upon which no finding was made and seek to undermine the one finding (by associating the failure with it) and so upset the result.

There is an obligation to spell out all the reasons in the judgment. The winner won't thank you for your care, or brevity, and it is easy for winners in such circumstances to wonder what the fuss was about; losers won't for some reason see it that way. Complete judgments avoid appeals and, in particular, re-trials.

This case took 10 days. I've not found a reference to bundle size. But my experience of heavyish AR and building disputes leads me to suspect eye watering. The law had to be addressed - I got as far as inferences from not calling evidence.

David, to go to the Smokeball, this was an appeal to the HoL, so no need for factual analysis. Opinions are quite long, and all say much the same. These days appellant courts try to do with one. The first instance judgment seems to have been longer - there is a whiff of Law Lordly disdain.

But if, ignoring the legal principles at stake, it had gone to trial now. Issues - fraudulent - no balls were bought/used. No influenza - at all or actual - Twitter/Facebook, experts etc etc. Say 3or 4 days of evidence? Unless it was Small Claim! All to be resolved with cogent reasons.

In another context/case - was there a snail on the bottle? Determine in 2016 litigation circumstances.

There may be a case for requiring/limiting parties to, say, 3 issues in all but exceptional cases without reference to value. And here we should remember that the allegation was one of professional negligence.