INACCURATE TRANSCRIPTS WERE NOT AUTHENTIC: HIGH COURT DECISION

June 26, 2020 · by · in Applications, Civil evidence

One reliable element in most litigation is a transcript of a judgment. In Ghassemian v de Beaumont & Anor [2020] EWHC 1642 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss had cause to question the accuracy of a transcript of his own judgment.

“The version of the judgment which appears in the claimant’s bundle and purports to be an approved judgment does not indicate where it came from. No firm of transcribers is mentioned on it. I infer it is not authentic.”

THE CASE

The judge was considering issues relating to a stay in an action brought by a party subject to an Extended Civil Restraint Order. That party was ordered to file a bundle and a skeleton argument.

THE JUDGE’S COMMENTS ON THE TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED WITH THE BUNDLE

The bundle included a transcript of an earlier judgment.  The judge found that this transcript was not accurate.

The application to lift the stay granted on 19th May 2020
    1. In the bundle and skeleton argument of counsel representing the claimant were filed at court on 12th June 2020. The bundle includes a copy of what purports to be my judgment of 3rd December 2019. Counsel’s skeleton argument is largely concerned to make submission that the possession claim is meritorious (and I note that the claimant now has a legal aid certificate). It also addresses the point that the County Court action was brought on 26th November 2019. It submits therefore that the action was issued at a time when the earlier ECRO had expired and before the 3rd December 2019 ECRO had been made. On the issue of what the claimant told the court on 3rd December 2019 about what he had done in the interim period the skeleton argument says this:

“7. It is apparent from paragraph 26 of the transcript of Birss J’s judgment given on 3rd December 2019 [1.9] that Birss J had well in mind that the status of any proceedings issued between 20th October 2019 and 3rd December 2019 might require:

“a special order . . . but Mr Ghassemian has told me that he has not done anything in that period in the Business & Property Courts because he said he did not need to and that may be, but on that basis there is no reason to make any order relating to the period before to-day and after the expiry.”

8. C’s submissions are as follows. Firstly, the suggestion at paragraph 1 of the May 2020 Order that to continue this claim might be contrary to the December 2019 Order is not correct. The December 2019 Order says nothing about the continuation of a pending action, it merely prohibits the institution of new proceedings or the making of applications in pending proceedings.

9. On the face of the December 2019 Order, provided that C does not need to make any applications in this claim, it can proceed, uninhibited by the December 2019 Order. 10. Indeed, D’s counsel was not inclined to argue the contrary before DDJ Davis on 20th January 2020, though plainly counsel’s approach below does not preclude or limit the scope of argument in the High Court.”

    1. The passage quoted from my judgment appears in the version of the judgment in the bundle (at paragraph 26). However the version quoted records what the claimant said as being that he has done nothing in the Business and Property Courts. That is not what the approved version of the judgment says. It records that the claimant said he had not done anything. His statement was not limited to the Business and Property Courts. The significance of the difference is that the Business and Property Courts are part of the High Court and so exclude the County Court (although B&PC work in the County Court is sometimes labelled as such). Therefore the version quoted in the skeleton would be true despite the claimant having issued the County Court claim on 26th November, whereas the version in the approved judgment would not be true.
    2. Furthermore I have gone back and checked the unapproved transcripts provided to me by the transcribers (for some reason two transcripts were produced). The relevant passages in the transcripts are

Opus transcript:

“17. So, I am satisfied that I should extend the civil restraint order against Mr Ghassemian for a period running for a further two years from the date when it expired. I should say that I have well in mind the fact that I am extending an order which has already expired. If there was any evidence that any acts which took place between the date when it expired and today needed to be dealt with differently, then I might consider whether a special order should be made dealing with the period from its expiry until now. But Mr Ghassemian has told me that he has not done anything in that period because he said he did not need to, and that may be, but on that basis there is no reason to make any order relating to the period before today, and after the expiry.”

Epiq transcript:

“15. I am satisfied that I should extend the extended civil restraint order against Mr Ghassemian for a period running for a further two years from the date when it expired. I should say that I have well in mind the fact that I am extending an order which had already expired. If there was any evidence that any acts which took place between the date when it expired and today needed to be dealt with differently, then I might consider whether a special order should be made dealing with the period from its expiry until now. But Mr Ghassemian has told me that he has not done anything in that period because he said he did not need to. That may be but, on that basis, there is no reason to make any order relating to the period before today and after the expiry.”

  1. The difference in paragraph numbering is not significant. Note also that the reason this passage appears in paragraph 36 of the approved version is that, as the judgment itself explains, when I gave the ex tempore judgment I explained that I would not attempt to summarise the background at that stage but would include a summary if I was asked to approve the transcript.
  2. The version of the judgment which appears in the claimant’s bundle and purports to be an approved judgment does not indicate where it came from. No firm of transcribers is mentioned on it. I infer it is not authentic. Rather it seems to be another example of the claimant’s deviousness and dishonest behaviour.
Tags: ,