header-logo header-logo

03 August 2012 / Michael Kershaw
Issue: 7525 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

In your own words...

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:

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll