In this case, the Claimant accepted that the witness statement was defective, and offered to provide a corrective second witness statement. Marsh M in Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd v Tehreek India Ltd held that the requirement to identify the source of the information (where not the maker themselves) is not satisfied by stating, as it was in this case, that the source is “ officers of entity” – the relevant individual must be identified and named. The general rule is that the witness should “ identify by name” any source ( Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL v Masri EWCA Civ 21 ). In his judgment he suggested that this is of particular importance in applications for summary judgment under CPR 24.2, as in this instance the Court is often asked to make judgment on the quality of the evidence filed, and whether the claim (or defence) has a real prospect of success. He noted that “ witness statement that contains information provided by another person must provide the source of any matters of information and belief.” He emphasised the importance of this as “ the accuracy of this information may be challenged at the hearing of an application or at the trial.” He referenced his own remarks in Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd v Tehreek India Ltd EWHC 539 (Ch) noting that the source of the information itself must be “ clear”. Marsh M provided guidance on this in his judgment. (2) the source for any matters of information or belief. (1) which of the statements in it are made from the witness’ own knowledge and which are matters of information or belief, and Paragraph 18.2 of Practice Direction 32 provides that: In summary, the Civil Procedure Rules (the CPR) provide that where an individual makes a statement within a witness statement that is not within their own knowledge, they must provide the source of that information or belief.ĬPR 32.8 states that “ a witness statement must comply with the requirements set out in Practice Direction 32.” Providing the source of any information or belief Marsh M found that the Claimant’s witness statement was defective as it “ failed to comply with CPR rule 32.8 and paragraph 18.2(2) Practice Direction 32” as the maker had not provided a source for certain statements made within the witness statement. In this case, the Defendant had applied for summary judgment and the Claimant and Defendant had each filed a witness statement. Master Marsh’s comments in the recent judgment in MF Tel Sarl v Visa Europe Ltd EWHC 1336 (Ch) serve as an important reminder to the makers of witness statements of the importance of stating the source of any information and belief.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |