 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
One possible misconception should be dispelled. In their response, the LAD
expressed concern "at the suggestion that a statement of truth in support of a pleading
should be signed by the legal representative of a party, if the party itself is not
available to sign it." This was thought likely to cause practical difficulty as legally-
aided clients are sometimes not contactable so that legal representatives may not be in
a position to satisfy themselves of the matters referred to above "thereby rendering
themselves liable to possible contempt proceedings."
It is important to note that the rules do not impose any obligation at all on a legal
representative to sign a client's statement of truth. They merely stipulate that a
statement of truth must be signed and that this may be done either by the party or his
legal representative. Plainly, the legal representative should sign only if he can meet
the requirements of 22PD3.8. If he cannot meet those requirements, he should decline
to sign. If neither he nor his client signs the statement of truth, the pleading could still
be filed and would take effect as a pleading, but it might be liable to be struck out
upon application by the other side.
No doubt if, for good reason, more time was
needed by the LAD to contact its client, this would be afforded by the court before
striking out the unverified pleading. In any case, there is no question of the rule
putting the legal representative at risk of contempt proceedings.
Recommendation 28: The rules should set out (along the lines of 22PD3.7 and
22PD3.8) the effect in law of a legal representative signing a statement of truth
to verify a pleading on behalf of the party concerned.
Notes
|
 |
|