The High Court has recently addressed a contentious issue surrounding witness statements in the case of lliquidX Ltd v Altana Wealth, focusing on the compliance of these statements with practice direction 57AC.
In a decision that underscores the complexities of legal compliance, Chief Master Shuman resisted demands to involve the solicitor responsible for a disputed witness statement in the procedural scrutiny. “The court should be reluctant to embroil the solicitor with conduct of the claim into the arena,” she stated, reflecting a cautious approach to implicating legal representatives in procedural disputes.
The case centres on the monetisation of Venezuelan sovereign debt and has been scheduled for a 10-day trial later this year. Preliminary matters revealed concerns from the defendants that the claimant’s witness statements failed to adhere to practice direction 57AC, a relatively new set of guidelines enforced since April 2021. This case adds to a growing body of disputes where these guidelines have been tested since their introduction.
The claimant contended that the defendants were improperly parsing the witness statements to highlight non-compliance, calling a 31-page document outlining these concerns oppressive. Chief Master Shuman acknowledged this tension, noting the tactical nature of such analyses but stressed the necessity for witness statements to genuinely reflect personal recollections rather than narrative constructions influenced by documents.
Despite acknowledging the potential for procedural tactics to be used as a means of pressure, the judge determined that the claimant should amend the statements to better align with practice direction 57AC. She highlighted that witness evidence needs to be grounded in genuine personal memory to ensure reliable fact-finding. Nevertheless, she rejected the proposal to require a statement from Daniel Hemming, the solicitor who signed the certificates of compliance, citing a lack of practical benefit.
Additionally, the court dismissed the claimant’s late request to introduce expert testimony concerning the Latin American debt market. Chief Master Shuman criticised the timing of this application, drawing parallels to outdated pre-CPR practices and underscoring the importance of efficient, cost-effective litigation management.
Commenting on the potential disruption this late request could cause to the trial schedule, the judge emphasised the prejudice it might cause to the defendants, restating that litigation should proceed without unnecessary delays.
This case serves as a critical reminder of the intricate compliance demands within the legal system, illustrating the balance courts must strike in enforcing rules without exacerbating tactical disputes. The High Court’s decision reinforces the significance of adherence to practice direction 57AC while maintaining judicial efficiency.
