Although there has always been a rule in respect of how witness statements, which were not in English, were to be dealt with, it wasn’t until April 2020 that CPR was amended to state specifically that a witness’ statement must be in their own language. Then the usual rule applies in how an English copy of the statement must be prepared, with the interpreter confirming the accuracy of the translation.
In respect of low value personal injury litigation, this was a nightmare for many because the Court of Appeal in Aldred v Cham ([2019] EWCA Civ 1780) made it clear that the cost of translation would not be a recoverable disbursement and Claimants could not rely on CPR 45.29I(2)(h) as the need for a translator was not as a result of a particular feature of the case.
The first authority following the change came from the appeal of Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB). In the first instance, the Circuit Judge dismissed the claim after determining the Claimant’s witness statement (which was English, but contained a clause explaining the partner of the firm obtained his instructions in his mother tongue and the partner drafter the statement) was defective and refused the Claimant permission to rely on the potential remedies (such as giving live evidence in chief via a translator or having the statement translated into the Claimant’s own language at trial).
Garnham J found the Circuit Judge was wrong to find that the statement ‘was not a statement at all’ because CPR was clear in that a defective statement may still be relied on with the permission of a Judge of the Court where the trial was taking place. Garnham J refused permission to appeal and it was made clear that whilst a Court can give permission to rely on a defective statement, that power will be exercised lightly. He recognised the issue of an English statement being prepared into a witness’ own language would undermine the principle of the statement being the witnesses own language as matters could be lost in translation. Giving live examination in chief was prejudicial to the other party as mutual exchange of evidence was intended to put parties on equal footing and any adjournment was prejudicial unless absolutely necessary.
Prior to Correia, I acted for a Claimant at a Fast Track liability trial (credit hire was agreed) and the Defendant’s witness was Polish, but his statement was in English. I made submissions to the District Judge as to why it was defective and that the Defendant’s failure to take any steps prior to trial to remedy the situation meant the Defendant’s witness should not give evidence. The Judge was in total agreement but given my client’s conduct (not relevant to this point) the Judge would adjourn to allow a remedy but would not allow the Claimant their costs of the adjournment. My instructions were to allow the Defendant’s witness to have his statement read to him in Polish and confirm its contents (which would go against Correia).
The next time I came across this issue was at a fast track holiday sickness trial. The hotel manager had an English statement but clearly intended to give evidence orally in Turkish. I raised the issue and my opponent made the argument that if the hotel manager was bilingual, and could give evidence just as well in English as Turkish, then could there really be a breach of CPR 32/PD 32?
During evidence in chief it became clear that the statement was prepared by the witness being provided with a questionnaire which he answered in a mixture of English and Turkish. Notwithstanding Corriea, the Judge took a pragmatic approach by conducting an investigation into how the statement was prepared and the hotel manager’s understanding of the content. The Judge decided it was appropriate for the hotel manager to continue to give evidence.
In the course of my own litigation work, I had to prepare a witness statement for my client in his own language of Sinhala (which is the language in Sri Lanka). To ensure my client’s statement did not fall foul of Corriea, and given my client could not recover the translation costs, I was instructed to obtain a translator and undertake the preparation of the statement myself. I located the company “Give Me Your Word Limited’ who helpfully arrange for a Sinhala translator. I then arranged a MS Teams meeting and over the course of two hours, I asked my client questions via the translator, I listened to the response and then if I was happy with it, I asked the translator to record his Sinhalese answer as the next line in the witness statement. This means that his witness statement was prepared not only in his own language, but directly from his own mouth. There would be no ‘lost in translation’ issue.
I will then send my client his Sinhala statement and once approved, I would look to have an English copy prepared and the translator endorse that the English copy was an accurate copy of the Sinhalese statement.
Such an approach (especially if you listen to webinar and guidance of Jake Rowley who was Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent in Correia – https://youtu.be/s7VVNEt2w2o which I thoroughly recommend you watch) should be in keeping with Corriea and PD 32/CPR 32.
What I find most interesting is the number of cases where I see on LinkedIn that Counsel or Advocate has successfully struck out a witness statement at a small claims trial because it doesn’t comply with PD 32. I find that most odd, except where the small claims track directions expressly state that there must be a statement in the witness’ own language which must then be translated into English. This is because CPR 27.2(1)(c) says that the only part of CPR 32 that applies to the small claims track is the Court’s power to control evidence under CPR 32.1.
I would recommend that all litigators take the appropriate steps to ensure their witness statements are compliant with the rules. Although there are clearly circumstances where the Court will allow a defective statement in, it is such a risk to your client’s claim (especially if they are the Claimant).
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.