Andrew Parker believes that courts need to take a tougher line with statements of truth
One of Lord Woolf’s more welcome innovations in 1999 was the introduction of the requirement for a statement of truth. This was to be used not just to qualify witness statements, which already contained similar wording, but to verify a range of court documents including statements of case, schedules and disclosure lists.
The object of the exercise was that: “If a party is required to certify their belief in the accuracy and truth of the matters put forward the statement of case is less likely to include assertions that are speculative and fanciful and designed to obfuscate” (Access to Justice: Interim Report).
As with other changes introduced with the Civil Procedure Rules, the reality is that although use of statements of truth started out well, there is a risk of practitioners falling into old habits and diluting the effectiveness of the provision. As I see it, the courts have been relaxed in their approach to this issue to
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
