Background
Nebahat Evyap İşbilen brought substantial proceedings alleging that Selman Turk dishonestly exceeded his authority when dealing with her assets. Shortly before trial, Turk sought permission to call Stephen Buckland, a former Hampden Bank employee, using a witness summary and to rely on a witness statement from his father, Dr Suleyman Turk.
The evidence was served on 22 September 2026, more than two months after the 24 July deadline. Under CPR 32.10, Turk therefore needed the Court’s permission and relief from sanctions. Buckland’s proposed evidence concerned his interactions with İşbilen, including transactions on her bank accounts, her understanding and financial sophistication, and her command of English. Dr Turk’s statement addressed similar matters and a late-2019 dinner with the then Duke and Duchess of York that was relevant to an allegation of dishonesty against Turk.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Adam Johnson granted relief from sanctions and permitted Turk to rely on Buckland’s witness summary, call Buckland at trial, and rely on Dr Turk’s witness statement. Applying the three-stage approach in Denton v TH White Limited, the Court found that both defaults were serious and significant and that Turk had not shown a good reason for serving the evidence late. His ADHD and limited legal representation before late August 2026 provided context but did not excuse the defaults.
Nevertheless, the overall circumstances favored relief. Both witnesses appeared able to give relevant, potentially material evidence on core disputed issues, including İşbilen’s sophistication, understanding, and English proficiency and, in Dr Turk’s case, Turk’s alleged dishonesty. Their evidence was expected to be limited and capable of being accommodated without serious disruption to the impending trial. The Court concluded that excluding it would be unjust, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations and the value of having the best available evidence.
For Buckland, the Court also held that Turk had been “unable” to obtain a witness statement within CPR 32.9. Buckland’s whereabouts were unknown by the pre-trial review, and, as a former bank employee, he was likely constrained by continuing duties of confidence. The witness summary adequately notified the other parties of the evidence expected and the proposed areas of questioning.
Key Takeaways
- Serving witness evidence more than two months late, especially close to trial, constituted a serious and significant procedural default.
- Relevant and potentially material evidence may still be admitted where it can be accommodated without serious disruption and exclusion would be unjust.
- Limited legal representation and ADHD supplied context but did not amount to a good reason for the delay.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that failure at the first two stages of the Denton analysis does not automatically require exclusion. At the third stage, the Court may give substantial weight to the evidence’s importance, the seriousness of the underlying allegations, fairness to the defaulting party, and the practical effect on the trial timetable.
It also provides guidance on witness summaries involving former bank employees: continuing confidentiality obligations and difficulty locating the witness may support a finding that a party was unable to obtain a signed statement, provided the summary gives fair notice of the expected evidence and proposed questioning.