Personal signature of litigant on evidence (Prince Abdulaziz v Apex Global Management Limited & Anor)

Table of contents

• Practical implications
• Facts
• Requirement for personal signature
• Reasonableness of the unless order
• Court details

Article summary

DR analysis: The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal for the variation of an order requiring a litigant to sign witness statements in person. The evidence related to extremely serious allegations and the absence of the signature of the actual witness would have risked putting the opposing party at a disadvantage. The fact that the litigant was subject to a protocol in his own country, that meant he should not personally become involved in legal proceedings there, was not a valid reason to avoid the responsibility in litigation in the English High Court. In addition, the court considered that an ‘unless’ order that the litigant’s defence be struck out due to continued non-compliance in relation to the signature ‘could not be faulted’.