I was contacted by someone who had a Defendant who was taking issue that a certificate of translation had not been served with the proceedings on the DCP. The two copies of the Particulars of Claim (English and that of the client’s own language) had been uploaded onto the DCP. The Defendant was threatening a strike-out application. Notwithstanding the Claimant ought to be given the opportunity to remedy before a draconian step such as a strike out is entertained, there is a question as to whether or not there is an actual breach of the rules.
What does CPR say about statements of case.
Before considering the rules, the logical point is that if your client’s main/only language is a language other than English, then naturally, they cannot possibly approve the pleadings if they cannot understand it.
That being said, that’s an issue for the party which, if at trial the pleaded case is wrong, falls on their legal representatives. However is it a breach of the rules as we would have with the witness statements?
There is nothing within Part 16 that has requisites, such as CPR 32, which requires a statement to comply with the Practice Direction (which in turn requires statements to be prepared in the witness’ own language). However, it does require a statement of truth as per CPR 16.2.
Even a statement of truth only needs to be in the language of the party when it comes to a witness statement as suggested by PD 22 para 2.2:-
2.2 The form of the statement of truth verifying a witness statement should 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.’
This is an oddity. A statement of case is just as important as witness statement, yet there is no strict rule about the language issue. Of course, there is also another factor which may be the reason why such a rules does not apply.
The ability for a legal representative to sign a statement of case
I refer to PD22 paragraph 3.6,
3.6 Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on their behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client’s belief, not their own. They must state the capacity in which they sign and the name of their firm where appropriate.
A legal representative cannot sign their party’s witness statement (or a list of documents, but that is a topic for another day), but they can sign a statement of truth on other documents such as Particulars of Claim, Defence and Part 18 responses.
One would need authority and instructions that the document is correct. Whilst it would avoid any potential issues with whether the statement of truth was validly signed (if they did not sufficiently understand English), paragraph 3.7 would mean the document was signed as if the party signed themselves:-
3.7 Where a legal representative has signed a statement of truth, their signature will be taken by the court as their statement that:
(1) the client on whose behalf they have signed had authorised them to do so,
(2) before signing they had explained to the client (through an interpreter where necessary) that in signing the statement of truth they would be confirming the client’s belief that the facts stated in the document were true, and
(3) before signing they had informed the client of the possible consequences to the client if it should later appear that the client did not have an honest belief in the truth of those facts (see rule 32.14).
It is important to ensure that your client understands the allegations being made. When your client asserts facts, make sure they are translated accurately from their language to English to avoid any misinterpretation. One thing is for sure, the statement of truth would need to be translated from English (i.e. the CPR valid version) into the client’s langauge.
However, in my view, there is no obligation to have the pleadings in their language. Any litigator would want to make sure the pleadings are approved by their client one way or another.
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.