New Rules Regarding Statements of Truth in Civil Proceedings

Wed, 26 Feb 2020

The 113th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules is bringing about a number of amendments to various CPR Practice Directions (see: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/update/cpr-113th-pd-update.pdf). This article will focus on the proposed changes to statements of truth brought about by amendments to paragraph 2 of Practice Direction 22. These changes come into force on 6th April 2020.

The form of the statement of truth verifying a statement of case, a response, an application notice or a notice of objections should now be as follows:

[I believe][the (claimant or as may be) believes] that the facts stated in this [name document being verified] are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

The form of the statement of truth verifying a witness statement should now be as follows (and provided in the language of the witness statement):

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Furthermore:

  • A statement of truth must be in the witness’ own language (new paragraph 2.4)
  • A statement of truth must be dated with the date on which it was signed (new paragraph 2.5)
  • There are additional requirements for situations where the witness/client does not read English as can be seen in the amendment document.

These amendments should be read alongside the changes to PD32, including the necessity to draft witness statements in the witness’ own language and providing information as to the process by which the witness statement has been prepared.

These amendments bring about important changes that all practitioners will need to be aware of.

Richard undertakes a broad spectrum of clinical negligence, personal injury and inquest work acting on behalf of both claimants and defendants. Richard has experience of trials (both on his own and as led junior counsel), interlocutory and approval hearings in clinical negligence matters, as well as inquests (including Article 2 inquests and inquests held with a jury). He is ranked by Chambers UK Bar 2020 and Legal 500 2020 (Tier 1) for his clinical negligence work.”

Related articles

Grace Gwynne & Alexander Mellis reflect upon recent experience and potential problems with the argument arising from the case of Mason v Laing and failures to serve a first medical report in soft tissue injury RTA Portal cases before obtaining a second report...

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021
Dr Louisa Sherlock, barrister at No5 Barristers' Chambers and former dental surgeon, to host a series of vlogs on the topic of dental negligence. These vlogs will provide invaluable feedback from a number of experienced dental experts from a variety of different disciplines on how they think that lawyers could improve their chances of success and reduce their costs....

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021
Neil Shastri-Hurst recently successfully represented an NHS Trust in a Multi-Track claim, in which the Claimant’s case was dismissed following half-time submissions that there was no case to answer....

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021