With ongoing uncertainty about what constitutes ‘conducting litigation’ rather than ‘assisting in conducting litigation,’ pending any clarification from the Court of Appeal in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys, many may turn to the CPR to determine which actions non-authorised litigators can undertake. One example of a potentially CPR-endorsed step is the signing of the statement of truth on behalf of a client in certain circumstances.
This provokes 2 questions that litigators need to ask themselves:-
- Does CPR give rise to a non-authorised litigator to sign statements of truth on behalf of a client?
- Should any litigator (irrespective of if they are authorised or not) sign a statement of truth on behalf of a client
Does CPR give rise to a non-authorised litigator to sign statements of truth on behalf of a client?
CPR 22 states that a statement of truth must verify a statement of case, a witness statement, and an acknowledgement of service in claims using part 8, certificate of service, contempt applications under part 81, or where a rule or practise direction requires a document to be verified. At CPR 22.6, it is further stated that in the case of a statement of case, a notice of objections to an account being taken by the court or an application, the legal representative on behalf of the party can sign the statement of truth.
Further guidance can be found in PD 22, where it says that:-
- The legal representative, where they can sign the statement of truth, does so on behalf of their client and will refer to their client’s own belief and not their own (PD 22 para 3.6)
- When a legal representative signs the statement of truth, they are confirming that their client has authorised that signature, that they have understood that the legal representative would be confirming the client’s belief stated in the documents as true, and that the client has been informed of the possible consequences if it should later appear that the client did not have an honest belief in the truth of those facts (PD para 3.7).
What many litigators will focus on is the footnote of CPR, which says ‘see rule 2.3 for the definition of legal representative’, which says the following:-
‘legal representative’ means a –
(a) barrister;
(b) solicitor;
(c) solicitor’s employee;
(d) manager of a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985; or
(e) person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act),
who has been instructed to act for a party in relation to proceedings;
Given that barristers do not have the right to conduct litigation unless they apply to the BSB for that particular practice right, it does not automatically follow that a legal representative (for the purposes of PD 22) must be someone who has the right to conduct litigation.
The view of many litigators is that ‘solicitor’s employee’ is not to be construed as an employee of a single sole practitioner but is intended to mean employees of solicitors (aka authorised litigator) who are the authorised persons within a law firm. The white book has very little guidance on the point, notably referring to how it was amended by the Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) Rules 2009 to include the introduction of other regulated lawyers (such as chartered legal executives in 2016), thus including (e) within the definition of legal representative.
If a barrister can be considered to be a legal representative for the purposes of signing a statement of truth for pleadings (who do not have the rights to conduct litigation), then it would follow that an unauthorised litigator, who is the employee of solicitors, can also.
The more important question is whether a legal representative should even consider signing a statement of truth if their client can do it themselves.
Should any litigator sign a statement of truth on behalf of a client?
This is the crucial question to consider. While CPR permits this action, the risk is that if a litigator unknowingly signs a false statement of truth, the consequences fall on the party involved, which could also include the litigator if it emerges that they lacked instructions or approval for the documents when their signed the statement of truth.
In personal injury cases, for example, a legal representative may be required to sign a statement of truth on behalf of a claimant. One is where the online damages claims portal is utilised to issue Part 7 proceedings online. Another is when the pre-action protocol for low value personal injury claims is engaged and the claim is commenced on the MOJ portal.
With respect to the MOJ portal. The lay claimant cannot use this portal, and when the claim is submitted, it uses the usual statement of truth, which includes “I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement.”
There are plenty of examples where Claimants have fallen foul due to the contents of the CNFs:-
- Advantage Insurance Co Ltd v Harris [2025] 1 ALL ER 363 (KB) involved the Defendant Insurer initiating contempt proceedings against the Claimant after DDJ Davy, sitting in the County Court at Exeter, ruled the Claimant was fundamentally dishonest. In considering submissions and the decision of Jet2 Holidays v Hughes [2019] EWCA Civ 1858, where false pre-action witness statements constituted contempt even without pending proceedings, HHJ Rusen KC, sitting as a High Court judge, determined that the purpose of the pre-action protocol and submitting a false CNF could support a finding of contempt.
- Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service [2018] EWHC 1288 (QB) was an appeal of a case where in the first instance, the Circuit Judge awarded damages to the Claimant. Upon appeal, it was determined that the Circuit Judge was too benevolent in his approach to the issue of fundamental dishonesty. One of the inconsistencies the Circuit Judge was presented with was the contents of the CNF and other evidence from the Claimant.
Conclusion
Ultimately, statements of truth are more than mere formalities, and their endorsement can lead to serious consequences if the documents they endorse contain incorrect information. Allowing legal representatives (including non-authorised litigators) to sign on behalf of clients may be convenient, but it carries inherent risks when the underlying information is incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading. As cases such as Advantage Insurance v Harris and Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service illustrate, factual inaccuracies can have profound consequences. This can lead to claims being dismissed at best, and, at worst, to findings of fundamental dishonesty or to contempt proceedings being pursued.
These risks will not be confined to clients alone. Where legal representatives sign statements of truth without proper verification, they expose themselves to professional/regulatory consequences. The conclusion to be drawn is that legal representatives must exercise extreme caution when deciding whether to sign a statement of truth on behalf of a client. There are certain circumstances where a legal representative simply has no choice but to sign on behalf of their client. Legal representatives must ensure that their clients fully understand the seriousness of the statement of truth and sign such documents only where they are satisfied that the client has approved and confirmed that the facts asserted are accurate.