Very much as the title (except that I found out about it yesterday). Doing this is not a good idea.
There was a case in the High Court that was handed down five days ago. It was some convoluted case about company directors from Lithuania that was heard back in January.
But one thing that stood out was this thing about smart glasses. Smart glasses can do a whole range of different things, but the relevant thing here is that they can be linked to a mobile phone through Bluetooth or an app so that audio can be heard only via the glasses – like having wireless earbuds.
Prior to the hearing, a Lithuanian lawyer acting for the Claimants was granted permission to have a video link of the trial proceedings (this is relevant).
A Lithuanian guy, one of the Claimants (the other was a limited company), was giving evidence through an interpreter. Right at the start of his cross examination, he seemed to pause quite a bit before replying to the questions being asked. These questions were interpreted and then there was a pause before there was a reply.
This went on for a little bit and it became apparent that there was some sort of feedback or interference happening with the sound systems in the court.
Counsel for the Defendants stated that she could hear the interference coming from the Claimant. The interpreter, who was sitting in the witness box, also confirmed this.
Clearly suspicious, Counsel for the Defendants asked for the Claimant to remove his glasses.
After the judge asked him to remove the glasses the cross examination continued.
After a few further questions, when the interpreter was in the process of translating a question, the Claimant’s mobile phone started broadcasting out loud with the voice of someone talking. There was clearly someone on the mobile phone talking to him. It appears that it was his Lithuanian lawyer who was observing on the video link.
He then removed his mobile phone from his inner jacket pocket. At the judge’s direction, the smart glasses and his mobile were placed into the hands of his solicitor.
After that, the replies he gave were very different to what was stated in his purported witness statement. Almost as though somebody else had written the witness statement instead of him.
The judge was, to say the least, not very impressed.
[120] Once Mr Jakstys [the Claimant] no longer had his smart glasses, he hesitated quite a bit before providing answers to questions. Frequently, he was asked a question and he would pause for some time before asking for the question to be repeated or he would say he did not understand the question. This occurred frequently when it was clear to me he simply did not know what his reply should be. He was also as a witness extremely focussed when replying to a question in seeking to set out his version of events rather than actually answering the question. 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.
[…]
[128] In conclusion, I reject Mr Jakstys evidence in its entirety. 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.
So, don’t try this at home (or in any court near you).
UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2026/543.html
It was interesting to see that there was a schedule at the bottom of the judgment of the ‘dramatis personae’. This is something I more commonly associate with some Terry Pratchett novels.