 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The Working Party is unable to agree with that suggestion. The concern as to front-
loaded costs has already been discussed. As to the other points made :-
(a)
Pleadings in commercial cases are by no means immune from the vices
identified above and the measures aimed at ensuring observance of minimum
standards are equally justified in their context.
(b)
A party residing abroad is obviously able to convey instructions and documents
to his lawyers and, as a matter of everyday practice (in the Commercial and
Admiralty Lists, as elsewhere), such parties readily provide affidavits for use in
the court. Assuming that his claim or defence is advanced bona fide on facts
believed to be true, one can see no reason why he should be reluctant to sign a
statement of truth verifying his pleadings or to provide the necessary assurances
to his solicitors to enable them to sign. He has chosen to sue here or has had
jurisdiction properly established against him here. We can see no reason why
he should not adhere to our procedures if he wishes to pursue or defend the
claim.
(c)
If, as is suggested, solicitors in large commercial cases sometimes take it upon
themselves to construct their clients' case out of amassed documents, it would
seem quite warranted to introduce a requirement that they obtain express
confirmation from their client, through a statement of truth, that the end result
does truly reflect their client's case based on truthful allegations of fact. If, in
such cases, neither the client nor the solicitors are prepared to sign a statement
of truth, one must question the propriety of anyone putting such a case forward.
Accordingly, while (as discussed below) the Working Party is in favour of upholding
procedural autonomy in specialist lists, it considers that the recommendations made in
relation to verification of pleadings ought generally to apply to cases in such lists,
unless expressly excluded by practice direction or by direction in a particular case.
(v)
Contempt proceedings as a sanction
A more substantial concern revolved around the question whether it was appropriate to
have proceedings for contempt of court as a possible sanction for falsely verifying the
pleadings.
|
 |
|