Hi guys, new to the forum.

I'm looking for some information regarding the retraction of witness statements in a civil case.

I'm due in court next week to defend a claim over a business dispute.

I have been informed via a third party, that one of the claimants witnesses is considering retraction their statement as it was 'mostly compiled by the claimant and they are no longer comfortable with it's contents.'

The pre trial hearing has already been completed along with court bundles containing the statement.

I have been asked by the third party if there is a way out for the witness

Not to sure if i'ved posted this in the rigth section.

Regards

Chelsea Blue

Who is this third party?

I imagine the witness can do a supplemental statement explaining his true position and giving any correct evidence he may have.

From your perspective, if nothing is done before the hearing you need only ask the witness in cross examination whether he is confident in his evidence.

Hi asokn

The third party is a friend of my family and I think the witness now wants me to know, that he is not comfortable with his statement. I'm sure this a genuine attempt to remove himself from the case, as he is both a friend of the claimant and myself, and has foolishly got himself involved, probably after a pint or two down the pub with the claimant. As the case is rapidly approaching he now realisies the gravity of his actions and that he can be cross examined at the hearing.

I really don't think he wants to attend the hearing.

I see. It's an interesting point and I have to say I'm not aware of any formal procedure to deal with this circumstance. If he won't attend I think a supplemental statement explaining the position should suffice. Do make sure that he produces something signed with a statement of truth.

if witness is reluctant to attend, then they should let their party know. would then be for the party to decide whether to call or not, try to admit, or summon. if witness attends, then you would, as asokn says, attack his credibility (friendship aside). note though that other party may then wish to treat witness as 'hostile' depending on what transpires. depends on circumstances, and what weight witness is to the case etc.

Thanks asokn, that makes good sense to me. I will suggest via the third party, that a supplemental statement should be made including a statement of truth and then get him to urgently forward it to the court, myself and also to the claimant. It might upset the claimant but so what, it will teach him not to try and sway joint friends.

if witness is reluctant to attend, they should let their party know. would then be for the party to call or not, try to admit, or summon. if witness attends, then you would, as asokn says, attack his credibility (friendship aside). note though that other party may then wish to treat witness as 'hostile' depending on what transpires. depends on circumstances, and what weight witness is to the case etc.

I understand exactly what you are saying Ford. I personally don't think the witness bears much weight on the case anyway, but it's nice to think that one of his witnessess is having second thoughts. How do you think the judge will react to a retraction?

be careful if getting a statement, must not 'interfere' with a witness.

difficult to say. witness could make a prior further statement to their party accordingly. if w attends and is regarded as hostile, depending on what transpires eg if retraction/different statement, own party can xexam, then J can consider earlier statement as well as current and decide which to rely on on balance, or to disregard w completely. if w does not attend, or statement is not admitted (if they request that it be admitted, then you would object and request attendance for xexam if unfavourable), then it is not in issue.

be careful, must not 'interfere' with a witness.

difficult to say. if w attends and is regarded as hostile, depending on what transpires eg if retraction/different statement, then J can consider earlier statement as well as current and decide which to rely on on balance, or to disregard w completely. if w does not attend, or statement is not admitted (if they request that it be admitted, then you would object and request attendance for xexam if unfavourable), then it is not in issue.

Again, I understand what you are saying Ford. I'm pretty sure the witness won't attend and I'm also pretty sure he won't sign any affidavit, if that applies. So maybe, on balance, it's best left alone as you say do not 'interfere' with a witness.

Just a quick question regarding an outstanding debt over six years old.

If it was a personal debt, I understand if no payments or acknowledgments were made, then it would become statue barred.

But, if it was business debt (partnership) and again no payments or acknowledgments were made, would it also become statue barred?

What would the case be if only one partner agrees with the debt and acknowledges it, does it mean that it becomes active again for that partner only, from the day of acknowledgment, or for both partners?

If you are joint and severally liable then payment by one acknowledges the debt for the other.

Unfair IMO because it lets them have their cake and eat it.

There is another way and that is to offer them a sum to release you from your liability for the debt. 40% would be my starting point. (Bear in mind that, should the other party go bankrupt or AWOL, you will become liable for 100% otherwise).

Thanks for your reply Bandit.

No payments have been made by either partner so does the below apply then:-

Joint debts

If you have a debt that is in joint names with another person, this means your creditor can chase either or both of you for the full amount. You do not only owe 50% each.

If you think your joint debt might be statute barred, you need to check if the other person has made any payments. If they have made a payment within the limitation period, this means the time limit restarts again for both of you.

If the other person has not made any payments, but has admitted to the creditor that they owe the debt, the time limit will only restart for them.

Having recently lost a civil case against a old business partner who was acting as a litigant, he thought he was going to get tens of thousands of pounds, but he was only awarded three thousand. Despite arranging for a cheque payment to be sent to him via my solicitor, he has not cashed it. I'm sure he has received it, but why would he not cash it?

The only reason I can think of is that he was so annoyed with the outcome, that he will deny ever receiving it and will inform the court that no payment was made, so as a CCJ will be registered against me and maybe send in the bailiffs as a final attempt to damage me.

Obviously I don't want a CCJ recorded, as payment was made shortly after judgement, well within 2 weeks.

Is there anything I can do to prevent this from happening?

You sent it via a legal entity so any issues are the claimants problem. Not yours.

Is there any possibility at all that it might not have been received ? Was it sent by a trackable method.

Perhaps the Solicitor could write on your behalf and ask why it has not been cashed ?

It is possible that he may not have received it, I'm not sure if it was tracked, but from history I can remember when he successfully sued someone else regarding another matter and payment was tracked, he deliberately refused to sign for the letter containing the payment after looking at the reverse to see who it was from, and told the postman he didn't want the letter. I witnessed him doing it. I know this caused lots of problems for the other person.

A real nasty piece of work!!

I will give it to the middle of next week and if not cashed, I will inform my solicitor.

Well if he doesn't want the money ....

As long as the solicitor keeps a record of posting the cheque (e.g. an attendance note) you should be covered.