Similar facts

O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary CA TLR 22 August

The claimant was granted permission to rely on certain similar factual evidence in support of his claim for damages for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. For such evidence to be admissible it had, first, to be logically probative of an issue in the case and, if it were, the Court had then to ask whether it ought in its discretion to refuse to admit it, mindful of the need to deal with the case justly. In principle the stronger the probative force, the more willing the Court should be to allow it, but if such evidence would lengthen proceedings or add to the cost or complexity, the Court should tend to refuse its admission under CPR rule 2.1(2). The added complexity was a particularly important consideration if there was to be a jury trial.