High Court finds claimant received assistance during cross-examination via glasses linked to phone
A High Court judge has dismissed the evidence of a claimant after concluding he was receiving assistance during cross-examination through the use of smart glasses linked to his mobile phone.
The ruling came in UAB Business Enterprise v Oneta Ltd, a dispute concerning control and ownership of a company and whether changes made to its register of members should be set aside.
During the trial, the claimant, Laimonas Jakstys, was questioned by counsel for the defendants. While answering questions, he repeatedly paused before responding, prompting defence counsel to raise concerns that he might be receiving help. Counsel told the court she could hear interference or background noise while the claimant was speaking.
The matter escalated when it was suggested that the claimant might be wearing smart glasses capable of transmitting audio. The judge asked Jakstys to remove the glasses, which he did. However, shortly afterwards his mobile phone which had been in his pocket began emitting the sound of a voice speaking.
The device was then handed to the claimant’s solicitor at the court’s direction. The judge subsequently concluded that the glasses had been connected to the phone and that the claimant had been receiving assistance while giving evidence.
Jakstys denied that he had been coached. He suggested the phone may have been producing sound from another source and even speculated that the noise could have been generated by artificial intelligence software. The judge rejected that explanation.
Counsel for the defendants submitted that the claimant was in fact being coached by Dr Paulius Miliauskas, a lawyer who had previously acted for him in Lithuanian proceedings and who was said to have been following the hearing remotely via video link.
While the judge said it was not necessary to determine precisely who was providing the assistance, she accepted that the claimant had been helped while giving evidence and had been untruthful in his explanations about the glasses and the calls that were heard.
The judge said Jakstys appeared unable to answer many of the issues raised in his own witness statements because he had no personal knowledge of them. It was clear, she concluded, that arguments and submissions contained in the statements were not his.
The judge concluded that Jakstys’s evidence was unreliable and untruthful, and it was rejected in its entirety. The defendants ultimately succeeded in the proceedings, with the court making an indemnity costs order in their favour.