De bene esse Definition

GLOSSARY

What does De bene esse mean?

For what it is worth.

The very loose translation 'for what it is worth' is best explained by the use of the phrase in the context of evidence. Where it is not clear whether certain evidence will be relevant at a later stage in a hearing, but it will be impossible (or, at least, very seriously inconvenient) for that evidence to be called at that later stage, the court may receive the evidence de bene esse. If the evidence subsequently becomes relevant, it is already to hand; but if it does not become relevant, it can simply be discarded

View the related practice notes about De bene esse

Hearsay evidence in civil litigation

Hearsay evidence in civil litigation This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to take account of court specific guidance—see: Court specific guidance. This Practice Note explains hearsay evidence under CPR 33 and the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (CEA 1995), including what it means, its use and rules relating to specific types of documents, and those documents exempt from the hearsay rule. It looks at the notice procedure required if you are planning to use hearsay evidence, and what to do if served with a hearsay notice under rule 33.2 of the CPR. The court’s approach to hearsay evidence, including the weight to be given to hearsay evidence, are also explored, together with the extent to which cross-examination of hearsay evidence is allowed under rule 33.4. What is hearsay evidence? Hearsay is ‘a statement made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in...

Courts’ power to manage factual evidence

Courts’ power to manage factual evidence In this Practice Note, the court's power to manage evidence under CPR 32.1 and, in relation to witness evidence specifically, under CPR 32.2(3) is considered, along with points to consider when proposing factual witnesses. In some courts, specific rules and practices apply. For details, please consult the relevant court guide for that court. For guidance on the various court guides, see Practice Note: Court guides and other guidance. Case management of evidence—Rules 32.1 and 32.2(3) Under CPR 32.1, the court can: • control the evidence by giving directions on: ◦ the issues on which it requires evidence ◦ the nature of the evidence which it requires to decide those issues, and ◦ the way in which the evidence is to be placed before the court • exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible (CPR 32.1(2)) • limit cross-examination (CPR 32.1(3)) Further, and in relation to factual evidence specifically, the court can reduce the volume of irrelevant or inadmissible material put forward in...

Discover our 4 Practice Notes on De bene esse

Supreme Court: High Court applied wrong standard of proof in conviction extradition case (Popoviciu v Curtea De Apel Bucharest (Romania))

The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in the case of Popoviciu (Respondent) v Curtea De Apel Bucharest (Romania) (Appellant) [2023] UKSC 39. The case concerned Gabriel Popoviciu, who had appealed to the High Court against his extradition order on the basis that the judge that convicted him in Romania, of offences pertaining to accessory to aggravated abuse of power and bribery, had an undisclosed and inappropriate long-standing relationship with the prosecution’s primary witness. The High Court quashed the extradition order made by the magistrates’ court. The principal issue for determination by the Supreme Court was whether, in a conviction extradition case, it is sufficient for the requested person to show substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that his trial was so flagrantly unfair as to deprive him of the essence of his Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights, and therefore a real risk that his imprisonment in the requesting state will violate his Article 5 ECHR rights. The Supreme Court...

Failure to give written particulars: when tribunals must consider making an award (Levy v 34 & Co)

Employment analysis: If a claimant does not actively advance before the tribunal a claim for an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 (in respect of a failure by the employer to provide a written statement of employment particulars), probably by including it in the ET1 and then by pursuing the issue at the hearing, the employment tribunal is under no obligation to consider and rule on the issue of its own motion, according to the EAT.

Read the latest 3 News articles on De bene esse

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"I'm able to do more in the day, which means I'm providing more value to my clients - and it's helped my margins in terms of how much I can bill. ��˾��ҹ�� is helping me make money."

ParrisWhittaker

Access all documents on De bene esse

GET ACCESS NOW