Michael Kershaw QC highlights the difficulty of multiple meanings in court statements
CPR PD 32 para 4.1 provides that an affidavit “must, if practicable, be in the deponent’s own words” and paragraph 18.1 has a similar provision in respect of witness statements. This refers not to the language of the deponent or witness—obviously his statement must be in his own language—but to his choice of words in his own language.
Source of difficulty
One source of difficulty for the lawyer taking a statement from a potential witness is the use of a common word or turn of phrase in a sense other than that in which it is commonly used. Insurance fraud is common and proceedings for contempt of court by those involved in such fraud was considered by the Court of Appeal in Barnes (t/a Pool Motors) v Seabrook & Ors [2010] EWHC 1849 (Admin) so I shall use claims for damages alleged to have been sustained in road accidents to illustrate the problem. A word may have two meanings:
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
