Civil Evidence Act 1995 and BIP0008 has anybody used this argument

[steve2577]

I have an ongoing case and would like to quote the Civil Evidence Act 1995 with regards to the Admissibility of Evidence Stored on Electronic Document Management Systems BIP0008 I realise that the LAW and what is considered best practice BIP0008 are 2 different things and there seems to be a lot of discretion for the Judge.

Has anybody been successful in quoting BIP0008 and getting a claimant to produce all the relevant documentary evidence or are Judges accepting the legal admissibillity of documentsby the Banks if something is signed by an officer of the business i.e. Director or Manager or some other Senior person. My confusuion is the Civil Evidence Act seems to give a lot of discretion to the Court in deciding what can be used and what cant be used.

Example If the Civil Evidence Act is quoted and an illegible copy is accepted by the Judge as evidence thereby making this in effect a true copy of the original, then other issues are open to question like who would sign something where most of the text was illegible and if there systems are so great why cant they send a proper copy of the original.

If a reconstituted or illegible agreement is submitted as evidence how strong is the Hearsay argument that is quoted in the Civil Defence Act 1995 (sorry to be so obscure here but I have to decide on pushing for this or not within the next few days).

 

 

The Civil Evidence Act 1995 states

Section 8 proof of statements contained in documents

(1) Where a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence in civil proceedings, it may be proved:

(a) by the production of the original.

(b) whether or not that document is still in existence, by the production of a copy of that document or of the material part of it, authenticated in such a manner as the court may approve.

(2) It is immaterial for this purpose how many removes there are between a copy and it’s original.

Section 9 Proof of records of business or public authority.

(1) A document which is shown to form part of the records of a business or public authority may be received in evidence in civil proceedings without further proof.

(2) A document shall be taken to form part of the records of a business or public authority if there is produced to the court a certificate to that effect signed by an officer of the business or authority to which the records belong.

For this purpose—

(a) a document purporting to be a certificate signed by an officer of a business or public authority shall be deemed to have been duly given by such an officer and signed by him; and

(b) a certificate shall be treated as signed by a person if it purports to bear a facsimile of his signature.

(3) The absence of an entry in the records of a business or public authority may be proved in civil proceedings by affidavit of an officer of the business or authority to which the records belong.

(4) In this section— “records” means records in whatever form; “business” includes any activity regularly carried on over a period of time, whether for profit or not, by anybody (whether corporate or not) or by an individual; “officer” includes any person occupying a responsible position in relation to the relevant activities of the business or public authority or in relation to its records; and “public authority” includes any public or statutory undertaking, any government department and any person holding office under Her Majesty.

(5) The court may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, direct that all or any of the above provisions of this section do not apply in relation to a particular document or record, or description of documents or records.