Report comment

A misleading headline provokes the usual unedifying scrap between partisans. The judge raised the issue of whether CNFs should have the same status as statements of case and witness statements for the purposes of contempt proceedings. He did not say that solicitors would be in contempt by submitting a false CNF - they obviously could not be unless party to the fraud. There is some truth to the remarks made about careless and inaccurate CNFs (and low fees are a poor excuse), but there is bad practice on the insurers' side as well. Aviva has a strategy of rejecting CNFs for insignificant omissions. They are among several who reject if the claimant can't confirm the defendant's name - many people do not ask for this after an accident. There is also a practice of triggering the Article 75 option to buy more time - the time stamps often reveal that this is done suspiciously quickly. As ever, there is good and bad on both sides of the fence, and it is dismaying to see solicitors at each other's throats.