In a recent High Court decision, a solicitor was found to have made a “false” declaration regarding the compliance of three witness statements with practice direction 57AC.
Deputy High Court Judge David Stone concluded that the solicitor, Richard Rooney, a consultant at a South London firm, falsely certified the statements’ compliance in a failed £8 million claim. This claim was initiated by Timothy Fulstow and Robert Woods concerning their interest in shares of a company owning land near Swindon.
Judge Stone determined that the witness statements in question had not adhered to the specified practice directions and were thus “clearly inadequate.” He ruled out giving any weight to these statements, as they lacked necessary confirmations of compliance and documentation references.
The evidence presented by Mr Fulstow and Ms Rodrigues, as identified by the judge, largely consisted of a recitation of documented events, attempting to argue the case rather than offering independent recollections. Mr Woods’ statement appeared to be a mere copy of Mr Fulstow’s, reflecting a lack of original testimony.
Errors in these statements were highlighted by the defence in February 2024, offering an opportunity for rectification, which the claimants chose not to pursue. As a result, the judge couldn’t rely on Fulstow’s or Woods’ fourth statements since they were heavily influenced by legal advice rather than personal memory.
Mr Rooney, who had signed off the statements, clarified that he was led to believe by a litigator—who was on maternity leave—that they conformed to the rules, a belief that proved misguided. Despite his assurance of no intent to mislead, and not being cross-examined, the error was deemed significant enough to render the statements unusable.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the claim, citing no proven intention among the parties for share acquisition, highlighting the critical importance of adherence to practice directions in legal proceedings.
