Statements of case must be verified by a statement of truth. That requirement is not a mere procedural formality. It is a fundamental safeguard intended to ensure that factual assertions placed before the court are confirmed by someone who is both properly authorised and sufficiently senior to take responsibility for their accuracy.
For corporate litigants, the question of who signs the statement of truth can be outcome-critical. This was recently brought into sharp focus by the Commercial Court in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Tysers Insurance Brokers Ltd [2025] EWHC 3155 (Comm), a decision which provides timely and practical guidance on compliance with CPR Part 22 and Practice Direction 22.
The CPR Framework
PD22 paragraph 3.1: the seniority requirement
Where a statement of truth is signed by a party and that party is a company, CPR PD22 paragraph 3.1 requires that it must be signed by:
“a person holding a senior position in the company or corporation”
and that person must state the position they hold.
The Practice Direction gives non-exhaustive examples of senior positions, including:
- director,
- company secretary,
- chief executive, or
- other officer or manager with authority to make statements on the company’s behalf.
The emphasis is not on job title alone, but on whether the signatory has real authority and responsibility within the corporate structure to vouch for the truth of the facts pleaded.
Legal representatives and corporate employees
The CPR distinguishes between:
- a statement of truth signed by the party, and
- one signed by the party’s legal representative.
A “legal representative” is defined in CPR 2.3 as a person instructed to act for a party in relation to the proceedings. Where a legal representative signs, the statement must reflect the client’s belief, not the representative’s, and must be signed in the individual’s own name.
An important and sometimes overlooked point is that a person who is employed by the company — even if legally qualified — does not automatically qualify as a “legal representative” for CPR purposes.
The Decision in Henderson & Jones v Tysers
In Henderson & Jones, the defendant applied to strike out a schedule of loss on the basis that it had not been properly verified.
The schedule was signed by an employee of the claimant company, who was a qualified solicitor and described herself as an “associate”. The court held that the statement of truth was non-compliant, identifying several defects:
- although the signatory was a solicitor, she had not been instructed to act for the claimant in the proceedings and therefore was not a “legal representative” within the CPR definition;
- the description “associate” did not, without more, demonstrate that she held a senior position within the claimant company for the purposes of PD22 paragraph 3.1;
- the statement was signed in the name of the organisation rather than the individual; and
- the statement confirmed the truth of the “information” in the schedule, rather than the facts.
While the court ultimately permitted the defect to be cured by a compliant statement of truth signed by a director, the judgment makes clear that failures of this kind expose parties to legitimate procedural challenge and tactical pressure.
Key Takeaways for In-House Teams
- Seniority must be clear and explicit
For corporate parties, the court will look at the position stated on the document itself. Ambiguous or internally meaningful titles may not suffice. Best practice is to ensure that statements of truth are signed by individuals with clearly recognisable senior roles — such as directors, company secretaries, CFOs or general counsel – and that the position is expressly stated.
- Legal qualification does not equal authority under the CPR
An in-house lawyer is not automatically a “legal representative” for CPR purposes. Unless they are instructed to act in the proceedings in that capacity, they will be treated as signing on behalf of the company and must therefore satisfy the PD22 seniority requirement.
This is a common and avoidable pitfall.
- The wording matters: confirm “facts”, not “information”
Statements of truth must verify the truth of the facts stated. Seemingly minor deviations in wording can render a statement technically defective and invite challenge.
- Always sign personally, not in the company’s name
Whether signed by a party or a legal representative, the statement of truth must be signed in the individual’s own name, reinforcing the personal responsibility attached to the verification.
- Non-compliance creates leverage for opponents
Even where defects can ultimately be cured, an opponent is entitled to take the point. Challenges to statements of truth are often deployed tactically alongside strike-out or summary judgment applications, increasing cost, delay and risk.
From a commercial perspective, this is avoidable exposure.
- Early coordination avoids late-stage risk
Verification issues often arise under tight deadlines, particularly following case management orders. Early identification of the correct signatory — and coordination between in-house teams and external litigators — ensures compliance on first service and avoids unnecessary satellite disputes.
Conclusion
The message from Henderson & Jones is clear: statements of truth are not administrative afterthoughts. For corporate litigants, they require deliberate attention, proper authorisation, and strict compliance with the CPR.
Getting it right is straightforward. Getting it wrong can be disproportionately costly.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on [email protected].
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
