A recent High Court case saw witness evidence rejected in its entirety after it was discovered that a witness was being coached through his smart glasses during cross-examination.

Facts of the case

The case concerned the ownership of a company. The Claimants sought a declaration that they were the owners of Oneta Ltd (a company engaged in property development), rectification of the company register and the reinstatement of the Second Claimant, Mr Jakstys, as a director of the company. 

In the Defence and Counterclaim, it was asserted that an oral agreement had been made whereby the Third Defendant would be allocated shares proportionate to his investment. Alternatively, a written investment agreement had been entered into to this effect, or a written settlement agreement which entitled him to be transferred shares and appointed a director in place of Mr Jakstys.

The Claimants disputed that the oral agreement had been made and asserted that the written agreements had been falsified. 

It was down to the judge to decide whether the oral agreement existed and whether the other agreements were valid. The court noted that "the parties' factual cases are diametrically opposed and the trial before me is a fact finding exercise with a distinct lack of contemporaneous documentation" and "there are many issues which depend on my assessment of the witnesses".

The judge ultimately rejected the Claimants' claim. A matter of key interest is the rejection of Mr Jakstys' witness evidence.

Use of smart glasses by a witness

Mr Jakstys entered the witness box in the afternoon of 19 January 2026 and gave his evidence through an interpreter. There were often pauses after questions from Ms Walker (counsel for the Second and Third Defendants) and the translation by the interpreter.

After several questions, counsel informed the judge that she could hear an interference coming from around Mr Jakstys, which was also heard by the interpreter. Mr Jakstys was asked to remove his glasses, following which Mr Jakstys' phone started broadcasting out loud the voice of someone talking. Following checks on his device, it became apparent that Mr Jakstys was being coached during his witness testimony via his smart glasses. 

Mr Jakstys denied this, claiming that the individual he called several times during the day (named as "abra kadabra" in his phone) was his taxi driver. 

What this meant for the validity of Mr Jakstys' witness evidence

The judge found that Mr Jakstys was being untruthful and that his explanation lacked any credibility. The judge concluded that he was being assisted or coached in his replies to questions put to him during cross-examination. 

"Not only have I held that Mr Jakstys was untruthful in denying his use of the smart glasses and his calls to abra kadabra, but the effect of this is that his evidence is unreliable and untruthful."

The judge considered whether this affected the entirety of his evidence. He noted that Mr Jakstys' witness statements, which he had sworn for the purposes of the trial and were stated to have been prepared in accordance with Practice Direction 57AC, were "full of arguments, opinions and submissions" which were not his and that he had no personal knowledge of many of the issues discussed. The judge found that his evidence was unreliable not only because he was untruthful about the smart glasses, but because the evidence was not his own. When answering questions, he was hesitant, sought to "stick to a script" and provided answers which did not correspond with his witness evidence. His assertion that he could not read English was contrary to documentary evidence and he had "a blatant disregard" for his disclosure obligations. Mr Jakstys' evidence was rejected in its entirety. 

The judge then worked through the rest of the Claimants' witness evidence, finding lack of credibility, inconsistencies, or untruth. 

A witness' evidence must be their own

This case is a stark example of coaching and interference with a witness' evidence. With advancements in technology and uses of AI expanding, parties and their advisors must be aware of the potential for issues such as these to arise. 

It is of fundamental importance that a witness' evidence is genuinely their own. PD57AC, which applies to trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts, imposes strict requirements to ensure that witness statements reflect the personal knowledge and recollection of the witness. Practitioners must ensure that witnesses understand these obligations.

Finally, although the judge in this case made no mention of contempt of court, it is worth noting that the court has jurisdiction to take action in respect of conduct that interferes with the proper administration of justice. 

Authored by Olivia Perkins, trainee secondee from Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club, and Nicola Thompson, Managing Knowledge Lawyer, Lewis Silkin.