The logic behind the exchange of witness statements is impeccable. A cards-on-the-table approach avoids the real risk of trial by ambush. An informed party will be able to gauge what they are up against long before trial and can make an informed decision about whether to settle and, if so, on what terms.
For some inexplicable reason, compliance with the relevant rules appears not to have troubled a large proportion of the legal profession. Indeed, I believe these rules are breached more often than any other provision within the CPR.
Practically useless
The pellucid wording of CPR 32.4(1) is such that even the proverbial moron in a hurry should comprehend the relevant obligation: ‘A witness statement is a written statement signed by a person which contains the evidence which that person would be allowed to give orally.’
Relevant factual evidence is all that is required. That has not stopped practitioners, day in and day
