Yodel Delivery Network Limited v Jacob Corlett & Ors [2025] EWHC 1435 (Ch)

 

Summary

The two handwriting experts in this case were given completely different samples of comparator signatures and did not undertake the same task. The judge noted that it was extraordinary and unsatisfactory that the defendants’ expert was provided with comparator signatures which were not the person’s normal signature and was then instructed to assume they were authentic.

Learning points

Learning points for experts

• Discuss with your instructing party, if you think that your instructions restrict your ability to provide your full expert opinion.

• After the exchange of reports, check that you and your opposing expert have seen the same evidence and undertaken the same task. If not, raise this with your instructing party.

• During cross-examination you might be required to answer questions put without the assumptions set out in your instructions. 

Learning point for instructing parties

• Try to ensure that both experts are provided with the same evidence.

• Ensure that you provide your expert with sufficient time to conduct their examination and prepare their report.

• Be cautious in providing instructions that may restrict your expert’s ability to provide their full expert opinion.

 

The case

Yodel Delivery Network Limited is a home delivery a logistics company. This judgment dealt with preliminary issues in the litigation relating to warrant instruments and certificates which the third and fourth defendants asserted entitled them to subscribe to a large number of Yodel shares. These shares, if issued, would be sufficient for the two defendants to take control of the company.

The authenticity of the documents

The claimant pleaded that these documents were forgeries, without legal effect, and that none were signed or executed on the dates that they bear. The defendants asserted that the Mr Corlett, who was the director of Yodel, signed the documents, and that they were witnessed by Ms Gregory.

Expert handwriting evidence

Yodel instructed Mr T as their handwriting expert, and the third and fourth defendants, Mr J.

Mr T

Mr T was instructed to examine and report on 3 original documents: a sole director’s resolution signed by Mr Corlett, and two Warrant Instruments. He was provided with examples of the signatures of Mr Corlett and Ms Gregory on other documents. Mr T’s conclusions (together with the conclusion of Mr P, Yodel’s ink dating expert) were:

1. the signatures of Mr Corlett on the documents were written by him;

2. page 1 of the sole director’s resolution may have been printed at a different time from page 2;

3. there was evidence that page 7 of the First Warrant Instrument had been substituted for the original page 7, and that pages 2 and 7 of the Second Warrant Instrument had been substituted for the original pages;

4. the signature of Mr Fishleigh on the First Warrant Instrument was probably written by him;

5. The Tamara Gregory signature on the Second Warrant Instrument exhibited characteristics commonly associated with traced or simulated forgeries and so there was evidence that she did not sign that document;

6. There were indications that Ms Gregory did not write her manuscript printed name on the Second Warrant Instrument;

7. There was extremely strong support for the conclusion that the signatures on the Second Warrant Instrument were executed around or after 1 January 2025, not on 19 June 2024;

8. There was evidence indicating that the 3 documents were not prepared simultaneously as multiple page documents on their purported dates, but portions of the documents were produced at different times.

Mr T and Mr P then each prepared CPR Part 35 compliant expert reports on handwriting and ink dating respectively, and these were exchanged with expert reports prepared by Mr J and Dr A on behalf of the third and fourth defendants.

To prepare his Part 35 expert report, Yodel provided Mr T with samples of Ms Gregory’s usual signature from other documents in the proceedings and from publicly filed documents. Mr T’s conclusions in his expert report, were consistent with his earlier report. He noted that:

1. “There is evidence that the Tamara Gregory signatures on the Second Warrant Instrument, Certificate 43 [Oxalyst], Certificate 69 [Shift], Certificate 70, Certificate 71, Certificate 72, Certificate 73, and Certificate 75 [Corja] were written by one and the same individual. Characteristics commonly associated with traced or simulated forgeries present in these signatures may preclude a positive identification or elimination of any writer.”

2. “It is highly probable that Tamara Gregory did not sign the Tamara Gregory signature on the Second Warrant Instrument, Certificate 43, Certificate 69, Certificate 70, Certificate 71, Certificate 72, Certificate 73, and Certificate 75 but rather appears to be an attempt by someone to simulate her natural signature style.”

Mr J

The judge noted that, at the time of the exchange of reports, it would have become apparent that something was going wrong with the process of preparing expert opinion evidence. Mr J stated in his expert report that, despite the signatures bearing characteristics associated with forgery, his opinion was that there was “moderate evidence” to support a conclusion that they were genuinely written by Ms Gregory.

However, the judge noted that Mr J’s opinion was undermined by two things:

1. He had been provided with 17 documents with examples of an initials-style signature that looked very similar to the disputed signatures. However, he had not been supplied with genuine copies of Ms Gregory’s normal signature. Although he had been provided with Mr T’s report, which included copies of the samples of Ms Gregory’s signature, he had not had time to read it because he had only had a short time in which to conduct his examination and prepare his report; and

2. He had been instructed to assume that the example signatures were Ms Gregory’s genuine signature.

As a result, despite the presence of indications of forgery, he concluded, on balance, in favour of genuineness, because of the similarity of the disputed signatures with the examples that he had been sent and instructed to assume were genuine. The two experts, the judge noted, had therefore been given completely different samples of comparator signatures and had not performed the same task.

In cross-examination, when told not to make any assumption about the authenticity of the samples with which he had been provided, Mr J agreed with the proposition that it was more likely than not that the disputed signatures and the sample signatures were forgeries. The judge concluded that it was clear that if Mr J had not been instructed to assume that the comparator signatures were genuine, and if he had been provided with the disputed signatures and the comparators for his own unguided assessment, he would have concluded that they were probably all forgeries, on the basis of the indicia of forgery that they all demonstrate.

The judge decision

The judge accepted Mr T’s opinion, which was consistent with the opinion of Mr J when stripped of the artificial constraint on his forensic examination that was first imposed and then reinforced by his instructing solicitors. He noted that this was consistent with what can readily be observed from the signatures with the benefit of the explanation of their features by the two experts.

The judge noted that it was “[b]oth extraordinary and unsatisfactory that Mr J should have been provided with sample signatures that, on any view, were not (or did not include) samples of the normal signature of Ms Gregory. On top of that, [Mr J] was asked to make an assumption about the genuineness of the samples provided to him rather than being left to make his own investigation and assessment. Those decisions inevitably skewed the conclusion that [Mr J] reached in his written report and undermined the value of it, once the full picture had emerged.”