Solicitors must verify witness statements before filing; failure to do so constitutes contempt of court, regardless of the admissibility of such statements at trial.

Background Facts

[1] There are two appeals before us. These two appeals revolve around an unsigned witness statement of one, Mr David Allen Martinez ("impugned WS") which was filed by the Respondent (via the Respondent's solicitors, Messrs Richard Talalla & Harun) without ever consulting or even meeting Mr David Allen Martinez ("Allen Martinez") on 28 February 2020. The Respondent for both these appeals before this Court is Jagmohan Singh Sandhu. Whilst the Appellant in these two appeals is Bhavanash Sharma a/l Gurchan Singh Sharma (Practising under the name and style of "Bhavanash Sharma")

[2] Rayuan Sivil No: W-04(IM)(NCVC)-152-04/2021 (Appeal 152) is the Appellant's Appeal against the concurrent decisions of the Sessions Court and the High Court to dismiss the Appellant's Application to expunge the impugned WS. Meanwhile, Rayuan Sivil No: W- 04(IM)(NCVC)-235-05/2021(Appeal 235) is the Appellant's Appeal against the concurrent decisions of the Sessions Court and the High Court to dismiss the Appellant's Application to cite the Respondent and the Respondent's solicitors for contempt.

[3] At the beginning of the hearing of both Appeals on 20 February 2023, the learned counsel for the Appellant has informed us that the Appellant intended to withdraw Appeal 152 and only proceed with Appeal 235. Thus, we shall only proceed to determine the propriety of the Sessions Court's and High Court's decisions in dismissing the Appellant's application to cite the Respondent (and the Respondent's solicitors) for contempt.

[4] For a better understanding of the matter at hand, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case that has led to the filing of Appeal 235 by the Appellant. Nonetheless, we are most aware that the present Appeal (and proceedings for contempt) has no nexus at all to the factual matrix and merits of the parties' dispute. In fact, we are minded as to not disturb the previous Courts' determination on merits. Thus, the relevant facts which ought to be considered by us are only the facts revolving around the preparation and filing of the impugned WS by the Respondent via his solicitors.

[5] Considering the proper limited scope above, the facts of the present Appeal began from the filing of six Witness Statements (inclusive of the impugned WS of Allen Martinez) by the Respondent's solicitors on 28 February 2020. Ordinary prudence and trite ethical obligation would dictate that solicitors must not abuse the Rules of Court 2012's allowance to use Witness Statements as means of Examination in Chief and thus, solicitors must ensure that the testifying witness confirms that the contents of the Witness Statement to be that witness' own words and testimony prior to the filing of the Witness Statement. Whether the Witness Statement was later signed and admitted before the Court is distinctly a separate matter of procedure of admitting and adducing evidence into Court. It is basic rule of law and ethics that a solicitor should not put his own words and narrative into the mouth of a witness.

[6] However, it is the exact cardinal rule above which the Respondent's solicitors seem to have breached when it was later revealed and admitt