Court order for CCTV

cjv

If a defendant is ordered to disclose CCTV or specify same which are no longer in their control and does not comply, what happens?

This is in regards to liability in a RTA.

forgotmyname

Then someone wasted money trying to obtain it?

All they have to say is its not stored at all or not for more than xx hours and there will be no point requesting it if they dont want to comply.

antrobus

cjv wrote: »

If a defendant is ordered to disclose CCTV or specify same which are no longer in their control and does not comply, what happens?

....

They can be held in contempt of court. Fine, imprisonment, that sort of thing.

cjv

Ok thanks. It was an order for additional CCTV from a large international company, I assumed they would of had procedures in place to store the footage in event of an incident, but the defendants insurers had not replied to any requests over many months so they had to be ordered by the court. Hopefully now they will respond.

I was just curious if it would go in my favour if they failed/refused the request, I guess I will just have to wait and see!

FestiveJoy

cjv wrote: »

If a defendant is ordered to disclose CCTV or specify same which are no longer in their control and does not comply, what happens?

This is in regards to liability in a RTA.

cjv wrote: »

Ok thanks. It was an order for additional CCTV from a large international company, I assumed they would of had procedures in place to store the footage in event of an incident, but the defendants insurers had not replied to any requests over many months so they had to be ordered by the court. Hopefully now they will respond.

I was just curious if it would go in my favour if they failed/refused the request, I guess I will just have to wait and see!

They'll probably wait until you've wasted a lot more money on court costs etc.
It's a common ploy often used by legal professionals as they see lambs running towards the slaughterhouse.;)

No judge will draw an adverse inference from any party's inability (rather than unwillingness) to comply with any court order; it would be quite wrong to do so.

It's actually quite a stange order for a judge to have made in any event, as it is for the claimant to prove their case, not for the defence to prove or disprove anything.
Disclosure would only usually be ordered, if required to do so, if it was the defendant's intention to rely upon the same as part of their defence in court.

cjv

FestiveJoy wrote: »

They'll probably wait until you've wasted a lot more money on court costs etc.
It's a common ploy often used by legal professionals as they see lambs running towards the slaughterhouse.;)

No judge will draw an adverse inference from any party's inability (rather than unwillingness) to comply with any court order; it would be quite wrong to do so.

It's actually quite a stange order for a judge to have made in any event, as it is for the claimant to prove their case, not for the defence to prove or disprove anything.
Disclosure would only usually be ordered, if required to do so, if it was the defendant's intention to rely upon the same as part of their defence in court.

Indeed, my solicitor said this is the first time he has needed to do this. We actually have CCTV of the impact already, but without going in to too much detail the additional CCTV would give a definitive version of events leading up to and including the accident. Proving beyond doubt that the defendants version of events are false, if they provide it.

I am finding the process of my claim quite interesting so far!