Unsplash+In collaboration with Getty ImagesI am sure that many have seen Gordon Exall’s post will have seen the case of Advantage Insurance Company Ltd v Harris [2024] EWHC 626 (KB). It was a contempt of court case, brought by the insurers, following a fast track trial that took place in the County Court at Exeter before DDJ Davy.
It is explained that Mr Harris confirmed, in evidence in chief, that his statement was true and accurate to the best of his knowledge and beliefs, maintaining that he has sustained a neck injury. It is suggested that the transcript of the fast track trial confirmed that Mr Harris made the concession very quickly (in response to a question from the Judge) that he did not sustain a neck injury and did not have any out of pocket expenses. In particular he ‘could not explain why he had approved any claim for their recovery’. DDJ Davey said she was not in a position to determine whether Mr Harris had intended to commit fraud or his Solicitors. She had no difficulty in finding him to be fundamentally dishonest.
HHJ Russen KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that Advantaged had established Mr Harris was in contempt of court. Upon hearing submissions, the Judge was satisfied that the appropriate penalty was a £3,000 fine (and costs, to be assessed, if not agreed).
That’s not my concern (although it is incredible that Mr Harris did not question what he was doing at any point). My concern is that the Solicitors signed both the CNF, the Claim Form and the Particulars of the Claim.
What did Mr Harris’ Solicitors do and were they allowed to?
The Judgment indicates that the CNF, Particulars of Claim and the Claim Form were signed by the legal representatives (on the premises that they were duly authorised to sign by Mr Harris to sign it).
They would have been able to do this because of CPR 22.1(6):-
The statement of truth must be signed by –
(a) in the case of a statement of case, a notice of objections to an account being taken by the court or an application –
(i) the party or litigation friend; or
(ii) the legal representative on behalf of the party or litigation friend; and
(b) in the case of a witness statement, the maker of the statement.
This, of course, only applies to the statement of the case and Claim Forms (not witness statements). I have been before a Judge who proposed to me that a non-authorised fee earner could not sign a Statement of Truth. I would say that CPR 2.1 says otherwise:-
‘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 19859;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
Fee earners would fall within the Definition of a Solicitor’s employee. As a person who is authorised to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007, I am able to sign a statement of truth under (e).
So the Solicitors signed the above, why does that impact Mr Harris?
The issue for Mr Harris was that he had a statement of truth signed and when a legal representative signs the statement of truth, it has the exact same consequences for the party as if they signed it themselves.
We do not know if Mr Harris ever saw his CNF, Claim Form or Particulars of Claim. He was doomed because he signed a witness statement and then, under oath/affirmation, confirmed that statement was true. However, imagine if contempt proceedings were brought against Mr Harris after he discontinued and before witness exchange, based on his Particulars of Claim? Mr Harris’ defence may have been “I never authorised the signing of those documents”/
Why legal representatives ought to avoid signing statements of truth completely
Signing a statement of truth is a dangerous game that all fee earners should avoid unless absolutley necessary.
You ought to send the document to the party for a signature. You must have their express authorisation. I do not think a blanket authority is sufficient. There may be situations where they can agree to the contents of the document but cannot return a signed document to you. In those circumstances, you must document/evidence the authority and approval should the client later suggest they did not authorise you to sign the document.
So many cases that I have dealt with as an advocate have had errors in the pleadings and the statement of truth is signed by the legal representatives. The client will claim the pleading is wrong during evidence, but of course the starting point is that they gave authority to their legal representative to sign on their behalf….. so if something goes wrong as a result, who will they blame?
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.