The High Court ruled that a solicitor falsely declared compliance with practice direction 57AC in witness statements.
- The declaration by solicitor Richard Rooney was deemed false, impacting an £8m claim over shares.
- Judge David Stone did not consider the statements in his judgment, citing significant non-compliance.
- Mr Rooney stated he believed the statements were compliant, prepared during colleague’s maternity leave.
- The case highlights challenges in witness statement compliance and trust in legal documentation.
The High Court has delivered a verdict that a solicitor’s declaration of compliance for three witness statements was false. The solicitor in question, Richard Rooney from Murray Hay in South London, asserted that the statements adhered to practice direction 57AC, a claim the court found unfounded.
Presiding over the case, Deputy High Court Judge David Stone ruled that the statements, central to an unsuccessful £8m claim for beneficial interest in shares, were not compliant. As a result, he accorded them no weight in his judgment. These revelations came despite Mr Rooney’s assertion that he believed the statements to be compliant at the time of signing.
The lack of compliance stemmed from several crucial omissions in the statements. Judge Stone pointed out that the statements were mere recitations of events and failed to include essential elements, such as witness confirmation of compliance and a comprehensive list of documents referenced.
It was noted that the defendant’s legal team had highlighted these inadequacies early in the trial. They advised that the statements, used by claimants Timothy Fulstow and Robert Woods, should be either struck out or given no weight due to these deficiencies.
Judge Stone described the statements by Mr Fulstow and business consultant Connie Rodrigues as not reflective of independent recollection, indicating instead a reliance on documents and counsel advice. Similarly, Mr Woods’ statement was criticised for being largely copied from another.
The solicitation errors were brought to light by the defendants’ email correspondence early in 2024. Nevertheless, the claimants did not revise the witness statements, despite being given a chance to do so.
Mr Rooney, in his defence, contended that when he endorsed the statements, he was misled by assurances from a colleague—who was on maternity leave at the time—that the documents complied with regulations. He reaffirmed that there was no intention to deceive the court.
Ultimately, Judge Stone concluded that there was no mutual intent for the parties involved to acquire the contentious shares, leading to a dismissal of the claim.
This case underscores the critical importance of accuracy and compliance in legal documentation, and the potential repercussions of oversight.
