Statement of Truth (England & Wales)

CPR Part 22.1 sets out a detailed list of documents that must be verified by a statement of truth in civil proceedings in England and Wales. The most important categories are as follows. First, statements of case — which include the claim form, particulars of claim, defence, reply to defence, counterclaim, and any further information provided under CPR Part 18 — must be verified by a statement of truth under CPR Part 22.1(1)(a). Second, a witness statement, which stands as the witness's evidence in chief at trial under CPR Part 32.5, must be verified by a statement of truth in the precise form prescribed by Practice Direction 22 paragraph 2.1. Third, an expert report served under CPR Part 35 must contain a statement of compliance under CPR Part 35.10(2) as well as a statement of truth; the wording for expert reports is distinct in that it also requires the expert to confirm which facts are within their own knowledge. Fourth, a disclosure statement given under CPR Part 31.10 when making standard disclosure must be verified by a statement of truth. Fifth, a schedule of costs or bill of costs filed under CPR Part 44 or Part 47 must be verified by a statement of truth. The court may reject or strike out documents that lack a required statement of truth under CPR Part 3.4(2)(b), and proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against any person who signs a false statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth under CPR Part 32.14.

Practice Direction 22 prescribes who is authorised to sign a statement of truth depending on the type of document and the nature of the party. For statements of case — claim forms, particulars of claim, defences, counterclaims, and replies — the statement of truth should be signed by the party, their litigation friend (where the party is a child under 18 or a protected party who lacks capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005), or the party's legal representative under PD 22 paragraph 3.1. Where the party is a company or corporation, the statement of truth must be signed by a person who holds a senior position in the company and is duly authorised to sign — such as a director, officer, or company secretary under PD 22 paragraph 3.4. For witness statements, the statement of truth must be signed by the witness themselves — it cannot be signed by their solicitor unless the solicitor is also the witness. For expert reports prepared under CPR Part 35, the statement of truth must be signed by the expert, not their instructing solicitor. For disclosure statements under CPR Part 31.10, the statement of truth is signed by the party (or where the party is a company, a person who is a senior responsible officer for disclosure). A legal representative may not sign a statement of truth on behalf of their client for a statement of case unless they have authority to do so under PD 22 paragraph 3.7 — and where they do so, they must confirm that the client understands the consequences of a false statement.

The wording of the statement of truth is prescribed by Practice Direction 22 and differs depending on the type of document being verified. For statements of case (claim form, particulars of claim, defence, reply, and counterclaim), the prescribed wording under PD 22 paragraph 2.1 is: '[I believe][The [party] believes] that the facts stated in this [type of document] 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.' For witness statements, the prescribed wording is: '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.' For expert reports under CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35, the expert must additionally state: 'I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own knowledge and which are not. Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinion on the matters to which they refer.' The wording is mandatory and cannot be altered. Courts have consistently rejected documents where the prescribed wording has been modified, as confirmed in Bank of Scotland v Hussain [2010] EWHC 2812.

The consequences of failing to include a required statement of truth in a court document can be serious and range from procedural irregularity to striking out of the claim or defence. Under CPR Part 3.4(2)(b), the court may strike out a statement of case if the statement of case has not been verified by a statement of truth. However, in practice, the courts often treat the absence of a statement of truth as a procedural irregularity that can be remedied under CPR Part 3.10 — which gives the court a broad discretion to remedy procedural errors — rather than immediately striking out the document. The court may give the defaulting party an opportunity to file a verified statement of case, sometimes on conditions such as the payment of costs. This approach was endorsed in Hannigan v Hannigan [2000] 2 FCR 650, where the Court of Appeal held that CPR Part 3.10 could be used to save a document that had been served without a statement of truth. However, where the absence of a statement of truth is deliberate, persistent, or causes prejudice to the other party, the court is more likely to exercise its discretion to strike out under CPR Part 3.4. In specialist proceedings — such as freezing injunction applications, where the supporting evidence must be given on affidavit or by way of verified witness statement — the failure to include a statement of truth may be fatal to the application. Parties should therefore confirm that all documents requiring verification under CPR Part 22.1 are verified before service.

Yes. CPR Part 32.14 expressly provides that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person 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. This provision gives the courts jurisdiction to treat false statements of truth as contempt under the court's inherent jurisdiction and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The sanction for contempt of court in civil proceedings is a fine or, in serious cases, imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years under s.14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. In addition, where a false statement of truth was made with the connivance of a legal representative — for example, a solicitor who knew the contents of the document were false and allowed their client to sign it — the legal representative may themselves be held in contempt under CPR Part 32.14(2). The courts have emphasised the seriousness of false statements of truth in a number of cases. In Kirk v Walton [2008] EWHC 1780 (QB), the court held that a false statement of truth was a serious interference with the administration of justice. In Jet2.com v Blackpool Airport Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 417, the Court of Appeal noted that the statement of truth regime is fundamental to the integrity of the civil justice system. Proceedings for contempt under CPR Part 32.14 may be commenced by any party to the proceedings, or by the Attorney General in the public interest, with the permission of the court under CPR Part 81.

The relationship between the statement of truth and expert evidence under CPR Part 35 is particularly important and involves additional requirements beyond those applicable to other documents. Under CPR Part 35.10(2), an expert's report must state the substance of all material instructions, whether written or oral, on the basis of which the report was written. This requirement ensures transparency about the instructions given to the expert and prevents the expert from presenting a distorted or partial account of those instructions. Under CPR Part 35.10(3), where an expert's instructions are not privileged against disclosure, the court may order disclosure of any written instructions or order that the expert provide a summary of any oral instructions. The statement of truth for an expert report — as prescribed by Practice Direction 35 and Practice Direction 22 — requires the expert to confirm not only that the facts stated in the report are true, but also that their opinions represent their true and complete professional opinion and that they have identified which matters are within their own knowledge and which are not. This dual verification requirement reflects the expert's unique role in civil proceedings: unlike a witness of fact (who simply reports what they saw or heard), an expert expresses professional opinions, which must be genuinely held and not influenced by the interests of the instructing party.