Trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts

Trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts Coping with the new rules

Our Sectors • • • •

Technology, Communications & Digital Media Construction, Land & Planning Personal Affairs, Private Wealth & Philanthropy Retail & Hospitality

Our Expertise • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Arbitration Banking & Finance Charities Commercial & Corporate Data Protection & Information Disputes Employment Family & Matrimonial Insolvency & Restructuring IP & Technology Real Estate Tax Trusts, Estates & Private Client

Trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts Coping with the new rules

A new Practice Direction (57 AC) has been introduced dealing with witness statements for trial in the majority of proceedings in the Business and Property Court. This article looks at some of the issues.

The intention is clear and commendable: witness statements must only contain relevant and admissible evidence based on the witness’s own recollection. They must be in the witness’s own words. They must avoid both argument and prompted reconstruction based on later documentary analysis.

Richard Harrison Partner | Disputes richard.harrison@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8000

laytons.com | 3

Trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts

The new rules aim to purify the stream of justice. In particular, reduce costs and make the job of the factfinding tribunal easier.

The basis of enforcement

However, the inevitable consequence is that, far from simplifying the overall process, the prescriptive and punitive approach has increased the burden on practitioners and considerably increased the potential costs of trial preparation.

The lawyer responsible will need to add another detailed

In finalising the statement, and in addition to the required “statement of truth”, the witness must provide a detailed confirmation of understanding of the nature of the rules.

“certificate of compliance”: There are, as we have come to expect in all matters to do with Civil Procedure, potentially savage sanctions for noncompliance.

The philosophy So, what is the first thing to do? Look at the “Statement of Best Practice” which is contained in Appendix to the Practice Direction.

This is a rather substantial, and indeed philosophical document: see paragraph 1.3 which has been derived from various judicial pronouncements on the subject (see Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited and others [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm))

“Witnesses of fact and those assisting them to provide a trial witness statement should understand that when assessing witness evidence, the approach of the court is that human memory: 1. is not a simple mental record of a witnessed event that is fixed at the time of the experience and fades over time, but 2. is a fluid and malleable state of perception concerning an individual’s past experiences, and therefore

4 | laytons.com

Trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts

3. is vulnerable to being altered by a range of influences, such that the individual may or may not be conscious of the alteration.”

Some requirements for the content of the statement • Record the process: confirm it by interview

And then there are detailed “principles” set out section 2 which I won’t quote here but which are broadly summarised above.

• State in own words how well they recall the matters addressed • State whether and if so how and when the witness’s recollection has been refreshed by documents which

Documents In particular, the only documents to which the witness can be referred are those which the witness created or saw

should be identified.

The interview record

while the facts evidenced by or referred to in the document

As indicated, there is a requirement for the lawyers to

were still fresh in their mind, so they would know if they

extract the content of the statement following a formal,

were accurate or inaccurate. Paragraph 3.2 of the Practice

properly recorded interview.

Direction requires a list to be made of such documents.

But the witness should not quote from the documents or

This really is going too far. I don’t know how rule

attempt to construct a narrative from them or argue the

committees actually work but this looks to me like the

case or comment on other evidence.

endgame of a process of egging each other on to see who

The first job of the solicitor is to compile that list and the

can come up with a suitably radical and clever proposal to

relevant documents to be shown to the witness.

encourage those lazy lawyers towards shocked and awed compliance.

The process: • Consider the issues properly to be addressed by the witness • Compile the documents • Have a meeting by way of interview or use another process which should be recorded in the witness statement

Yet it is the main aspect that will increase costs and encourage satellite litigation to no real beneficial effect.

Someone was trying to impress someone.

The position of the client (who has verified a statement of case)

• Do not ask leading questions

One unintended consequence is the failure by the rule

• Use open questions as much as possible

makers to recognise that the witness statement recording

• Make a detailed, accurate, contemporaneous note of

recollections for the purpose of trial is not the first and only

that interview and keep it • Deploy as few drafts as possible • Help the witness with the drafting but do not go beyond the scope of the notes

part of the process.

There is a difference between a witness who is brought in to provide a specific recollection of their own senses for the

laytons.com | 5

Trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts

purpose of establishing a fact and a client representative who has been involved in the transaction in question but who might also have been involved in the detailed underlying case theory and litigation strategy.

They will have participated in wide-ranging discussions on the shape of the claim: if this set of facts is established, then what is the legal consequence? The case would then be formulated and the final statement of case verified by a statement of truth.

This will not have involved the same rules as apply to the trial witness statement under the new Practice Direction but the process (which is clearly privileged, for good reasons) will need to be referred to. Precisely how this will be managed is uncertain but it is an additional complication.

Conclusion Why it happened and why the prescribed solution may not be straightforward Quite apart from resentment at the sanctions based and prescriptive approach, it may be worth exploring reasons for the ostensible problem which do not occur to those solely looking at the context of a final trial hearing.

Why did lawyers so consistently ignore the rules for so many years? I suspect the reason was is that the witness statement process provided a weapon in an armoury. The litigation process is, it is generally accepted not just about the “trip to trial” but is a means of avoiding trial by persuading the opponents that a trial is not in their interests and it is better to settle.

The well-timed argumentative witness statement was sometimes a useful part of this process. Whilst recognising that it was not technically the right thing to do, the statement was used as a means to set out how advanced and comprehensive the client’s preparation has been.

Whilst not according with the Gestmin principles, the well-presented recollection was there and the prospect of a thoroughly prepared witness was lodged into the opponents’ consciousness and might play a part in settlement negotiations or mediation.

So, on one analysis, the old style “non-compliant” statement had its role. Maybe under the new regime they will come to be used as an additional resource with compliant statements being reserved for deployment at trial.

There will be work-arounds and the new punitive rules will just need to be managed as an additional, somewhat misfired, burden. But the increase in costs will be palpable.

6 | laytons.com

Expertise

Disputes Our specialist team is experienced in avoiding, managing and resolving claims and disputes in a variety of contexts. Our work involves the identification of legal problems and solving them by effective advice and negotiation. Where necessary we use litigation in a variety of courts and tribunals.

Our clients come from a range of sectors, but they all benefit from an approach that is accessible, practical, creative and cost-effective. We aim to identify and meet each client’s particular needs in an approachable but effective way, recognising the importance of a cost-benefit analysis. We operate in an international context, and our connections with legal experts in other jurisdictions give us a full crossborder capability. We are used to dealing with injunctions and other urgent matters and regularly use alternative means of dispute resolution, such as arbitration and mediation.

John Abbott FCIArb

Robert Clark

Miriam Giorgioni

Partner john.abbott@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8063

Partner robert.clark@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8066

Lawyer miriam.giorgioni@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8078

Richard Harrison

Paddy Kelly

Nicola Khan

Partner richard.harrison@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8049

Partner paddy.kelly@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8018

Solicitor nicola.khan@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8028

Katherine Martyn

Rebekah Parker

Will Slater

Trainee Solicitor katherine.martyn@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8000

Partner rebekah.parker@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8000

Consultant will.slater@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8055

Geraint Thomas

Ben Thorogood

Daniel Walter

Partner geraint.thomas@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8000

Associate Partner ben.thorogood@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8069

Solicitor daniel.walter@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8095

Rachel Weir

David Wood

Paralegal rachel.weir@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8000

Chartered Legal Executive david.wood@laytons.com +44 (0)20 7842 8000

This information is offered on the basis that it is a general guide only and not a substitute for legal advice.

We cannot accept any responsibility for any liabilities of any kind incurred in reliance on this information.

Pinners Hall, Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1EX +44 (0)20 7842 8000 | london@laytons.com laytons.com

© Laytons LLP which is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA Nº 566807). A list of members is available for inspection at the above offices.