You obviously have not read thelinked BBC articlethat raised this issue a couple of pages back:Bicycle tramp said:That very much depends upon what was sworn. There was obviously some brinksmanship going on at the time; did the LA side go as far as swearing false statements?
Each side in UK civil cases are required to present their evidence by way of affidavit. As Mr Armstrong was the Claimant he would have been required to produce an affidavit in support of his claim for monetary damages against the Times and others.Its letter to Armstrong's lawyers read: "It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent. Your representations that you had never taken performance-enhancing drugs were deliberately false."
I would say that if Mr. Armstrong made a "representation" it was by way of sworn affidavit as he did not appear at any of the interlocutory hearings held before the case was settled.