ANOTHER WITNESS STATEMENT THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: THE CLAIMANT’S STATEMENT WAS “PARTICULARLY UNHELPFUL” AND LARGE IGNORED
In Burns v Bridge & Anor [2024] EWHC 2620 (Ch) HHK Cawson KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, observed that the claimant’s witness statement did not comply with PD 57AC. The witness statement was, to all and intents and purposes, useless. The case proceeded on the basis that the claimant gave evidence in chief and the statement was largely ignored. Other claimants may not be so fortunate.
“ The seriousness of the position is compounded by the fact that the witness statement contains a certificate of compliance signed by Mrs Burns’ Solicitor.”
THE CASE
The case related to the construction of the definition of the phrase “lender’s debt” in a Deed made between the parties. The claimant also alleged that certain properties, sold by the defendants, were sold at an undervalue. The claimant succeeded in relation to the construction issue to a limited extent (but one which may make no practical difference to the outcome). The claimed failed on the sale at an undervalue allegations.
THE JUDGMENT ON THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT
The judge commented on the claimant’s witness statement observing that it was non-compliant with the rules and “particularly unhelpful”. The surprising thing was that a solicitor had signed the statement of compliance.
“5. Mrs Burns made a witness statement dated 19 June 2024 running to some 104 paragraphs. As Mr Chapman KC frankly accepted, and had indeed foreshadowed in his Skeleton Argument, this witness statement breaches Practice Direction 57AC in respect of trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts in a number of respects. Indeed, it is fair to say that this witness statement breaches a significant number of paragraphs of Practice Direction 57 AC, including paragraph 3.1 and thereof, and paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the Appendix thereto, in a serious way. It deals with a number of matters going well beyond Mrs Burns’ pleaded case, it quotes extensively from, and takes the court in some detail through, documents, it argues Mrs Burns’ case, and it includes much impermissible commentary. The seriousness of the position is compounded by the fact that the witness statement contains a certificate of compliance signed by Mrs Burns’ Solicitor.
6. I made it clear to Mr Chapman KC in opening that I regarded Mrs Burns’ witness statement as being particularly unhelpful in circumstances where, given the issues between the parties, the evidence could have been of very limited scope, but that because of the way that Mrs Burns’ evidence had been presented, it was nigh impossible to divine therefrom that which might be of assistance in determining the case. In the event, Mr Chapman KC accepted my suggestion that I should not place any significant reliance upon Mrs Burns’ witness statement itself, but that I would permit Mrs Burns to give oral evidence in chief dealing with the very limited matters upon which her evidence might be of assistance to the Court. Mrs Burns thus gave oral evidence in chief and was cross examined by Mr Mellor.”