Overview

The past 12 months has seen a number of cases where judges have been highly critical of the witness statements used at trials or hearings. This criticism is not unusual. Many witness statements are prepared without reference to the Rules, Practice Directions or judicial guidance. Poorly drafted witness statements are harmful to the client’s case, and often expensive for the solicitors involved.

This webinar looks at the practical steps necessary to take a witness statement for the fee earners who take them.

It makes sure that the fee earners know the rules and avoid the mistakes that are often made when statements are prepared.

It also deals with the role of the fee earner who supervises the taking of witness statements.

Key topics covered

• Understanding the requirements of CPR Part 32 and related Practice Directions.
• Avoiding the most common drafting errors and pitfalls.
• Ensuring witness statements are genuinely in the witness’s own words.
• Supervising and reviewing statements effectively.
• Learning from recent judicial criticism and case law.

Judicial observations

“…. the probability of overlap on this scale being entirely fortuitous seems to me much closer to near zero probability that is at the heat death of the Universe end of the spectrum than it does to exceeding the 50% that represents a probable reason for the similarity in drafting between the two statements.”
Skykomish Ltd v Gerald Eve LLP [2025] EWHC 1031 (Ch)

“That credit hire litigation can be characterised as bulk litigation does not excuse an overreliance on a prescribed process of precedent documents including witness statements. There is still an obligation to ensure that any witness statement complies with CPR Part 32 and the Practice Direction thereto. Blind following of a company process is no substitute for understanding these requirements.”
Mosammat Shapna Khatun v Shamim Hasan & Anor [2025] EWHC 1658 (Ch),

“The circumstances in which the witness statements of the claimant’s parents and that of Mrs Sheasby were prepared are very unsatisfactory. The identical terms of a number of the paragraphs, indeed multiple paragraphs as between the parents, demonstrates that the evidence cannot be their own words. In my judgment, the most likely explanation is that these three witnesses discussed their evidence before giving what amounted to joint instructions to the claimant’s solicitor, who then drafted a statement and cut and pasted paragraphs into other statements. This approach undermines the cogency of the evidence as it is impossible to determine the actual words of each witness.”
MJF v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 3156 (KB).