Witness evidence, technology and the court – case update

The High Court has handed down its decision in UAB Business Enterprise and Another v Oneta Limited and Others [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch), a case which highlights that witness evidence can be rejected ‘in its entirety’ due to the behaviour of the witness, including the use of smart glasses during hearings. Here we summarise the key points.

The importance of the evidence

The dispute centred on the ownership and control of a property development company (Oneta Limited) (“Oneta”). The Claimants argued that (a) the Third Defendant (Mr Prusinskis) had wrongfully altered Companies House records to register himself as a director and shareholder of Oneta; and (b) that key documents relied on by the Defendants were falsified. They sought rectification of the company’s register pursuant to s.125 of the Companies Act 2006 and reinstatement of the Second Claimant (Mr Jakstys) as director of Oneta. Mr Prusinskis defended the claim on the basis that he had become entitled to shares and control of Oneta legitimately. 

Ultimately, the court in effect rejected expert evidence about the veracity of one of the documents and instead preferred the evidence of the Second and Third Defendants, finding that the Claimants failed to prove that the documents relied on by the Defendants were forgeries and permitting rectification.

Witness evidence

One notable aspect of the case is that the court rejected the evidence of the second Claimant’s witness evidence:

He was untruthful in relation to his use about the smart glasses and in being coached through the smart glasses. He had a blatant disregard for the signing of the disclosure certificate and carrying out his disclosure obligations. He switched between signing documents in English and then requiring his statements to be written in Lithuanian and then translated. He was unable to reply to many questions relating to calls made. I do not consider that what is set out in his witness statements is actually his evidence in accordance with the statement of truth he signed.

In terms of the smart glasses – glasses which are connected to the internet and other devices, allowing the user to see and/or hear content – the court found that:

• the smart glasses were connected to the witness’ mobile phone during the hearing;
• the witness was being coached through his evidence using the devices;
• the witness was untruthful in denying his use of smart glasses in evidence.

The court also noted that once the witness no longer had his smart glasses, he hesitated noticeably more and “He was effectively seeking to stick to a script and ensure he replied by giving that evidence even if it did not reply to the question asked”.

Technology and the court

The use of technology and the court has always been a live topic; from ediscovery, to ebundling, to trial presentation.  However, there are new and emerging issues, too; use of AI in preparing court documents and AI use by court officer holders (see our article on Updated Guidance on AI for Judicial Office Holders) are two such examples.

At the same time, the Court is already alive to issues of witness fallibility (See our article series - Episodic memory - ‘Do you remember/the twenty-first night of September?’). The use of smart glasses in this instance to receive live coaching opens up further considerations about witness reliability, particularly in a World where wearable technology is becoming increasingly prevalent, both in preparing for and during trial. 

It is also worth bearing in mind that this technology could foreseeably be used to record or transmit court proceedings – either of which could (without express permission) result in criminal sanction for contempt of court.

These emerging issues reinforce some of the key messages in the guidance on AI for judicial officer holders; be aware that court/tribunal users may have used AI tools and take responsibility.

This article was written by William Bainbridge.