CPR Part 32: The Rules Every Credit Hire Professional Should Know

Most credit hire witness statements are not challenged on the law. They are challenged on how they were built. This is the working reference to Part 32 and PD 32, with rule and convention kept apart.

A hire claim turns on facts only the claimant can prove: what they needed the vehicle for, why they could not use another, what they understood about the hire arrangement. The witness statement is not a supporting document. It is the evidence itself.

What CPR Part 32 covers, and what PD 32 adds

Part 32 sets the framework. PD 32 sets the form.

Rule 32.1 gives the court a broad power to control evidence, including power to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible.

Rule 32.4(1) is the definition worth memorising. A witness statement is "a written statement signed by a person which contains the evidence which that person would be allowed to give orally."

Two consequences follow. If the witness could not say it in the box, it does not belong in the statement: argument, rate commentary and legal submission are not evidence. And under rule 32.5(2) the statement stands as evidence in chief, with rules 32.5(3) and (4) allowing amplification only by permission, and only where there is good reason not to confine the evidence to it. What is not in the statement is, in practice, not in the case.

Rule 32.8 then does the handover: a witness statement must comply with PD 32. That is what makes the practice direction mandatory rather than advisory.

The mandatory content of a witness statement

Paragraphs 17 to 20 carry the content requirements. Paragraph 18.1 is the one to know by heart.

Paragraph 17.1 requires the title of the proceedings in the heading, and paragraph 17.2 a top right block identifying the party, the witness, the statement number, the exhibits, the date made and the date of any translation.

Paragraph 18.1 is the substantive list. The statement must, if practicable, be in the intended witness's own words, must in any event be drafted in their own language, should be in the first person, and should also state:

1. the full name of the witness
2. their place of residence or, if made in a professional, business or other occupational capacity, the address at which they work, the position they hold and the name of their firm or employer
3. their occupation, or if they have none, their description
4. the fact that they are a party to the proceedings or the employee of such a party, if that is the case
5. the process by which it has been prepared, for example, face-to-face, over the telephone, and/or through an interpreter

Note the difference in strength between the two opening duties. "Own words" is qualified by "if practicable". "Own language" is "must in any event".

Paragraph 18.2 requires the statement to indicate what comes from the witness's own knowledge and what is information or belief, and to give the source for the latter. Paragraph 19.1 then covers physical form, down to the margin width.

Here rule and convention part company. Paragraph 19.2 says only that chronological order is "usually convenient". That is guidance, not command. The familiar hire headings, background, need for hire, period, impecuniosity, are convention. Good convention, but no rule requires them. Practice Direction 57AC does not fill the gap either: it applies in the Business and Property Courts, not to a county court hire claim.

The statement of truth, and what CPR 32.14 does about a false one

The wording is prescribed. Do not paraphrase it.

Paragraph 20.1 requires a statement by the witness, in their own language, that they believe the facts are true. Paragraph 20.2 gives the wording:

"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."

Older precedents carry the pre-2020 short form without the contempt warning. Check rather than assume.

Rule 32.14 is the sanction that wording refers to. Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document, prepared in anticipation of or during proceedings and verified by a statement of truth, without an honest belief in its truth.

Read "or causes to be made". The rule reaches the person who put the words in front of the witness, not only the witness. Note also that proceedings may be brought. There is no automatic consequence, and the route runs through the court. The threshold is absence of honest belief, not inaccuracy. A witness who is honestly wrong is not in contempt. One who signs a paragraph they did not read is in a different position.

Who may sign a statement of truth sits in Part 22.

Paragraph 18.1(5): stating how the statement was prepared

In force for years, and live again for a new reason.

Paragraph 18.1(5) requires the statement to state the process by which it has been prepared. The examples given, face-to-face, over the telephone, through an interpreter, are illustrative rather than exhaustive. The obligation is to describe the actual process.

For most of its life this was a box ticked with one line. It is live because the Civil Justice Council has been examining whether AI use in preparing court documents needs its own rules. Its consultation closed on 14 April 2026, and its July 2026 update showed views still divided on witness statements. A final report is expected later in 2026. No new rule is in force.

The drafting point does not depend on that outcome. A statement produced by a system that composes first-person narrative from uploaded records, then describes itself as prepared face-to-face, is not describing its process accurately. The fuller argument is in our critical reading of PD 32 paragraph 18.1(5) and the CJC proposals.

The five compliance failures that show up most in credit hire files

All are cheap to fix before signature and expensive to meet at trial.

1. Paragraph 18.1(5) left as boilerplate. An inherited line describing a process that did not happen.

2. Template language rather than the witness's words. In Wiltshire v Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company of Europe [2025] EWCC 13 the claimant's oral evidence made clear his statement followed a template precedent rather than his own words, and the gap between what he said and what he had signed badly damaged his credibility. A claim pleaded at around £48,000 recovered a little over £1,000. A county court decision, so persuasive rather than binding, but the mechanism is general. See our analysis of what Wiltshire v Aioi means for witness statements.

3. No separation of knowledge from information and belief. Paragraph 18.2 requires it, and hire statements are exposed because rate evidence, invoice detail and repair timelines usually come from the accident management company or the repairer. One register for all of it invites the obvious cross-examination.

4. Exhibits not properly handled. Paragraph 18.3 requires an exhibit to be verified and identified by the witness and kept separate from the statement, and paragraph 18.6 requires consecutive numbering across that witness's statements.

5. Signature and alteration defects. Paragraph 22.1 requires any alteration to be initialled by the maker, and paragraph 22.2 provides that a statement with an uninitialled alteration may be used in evidence only with the court's permission.

What the court actually does when a statement falls short

Non-compliance gives the court a discretion. It does not produce an automatic outcome.

Paragraph 25.1 is the operative provision. Where a statement does not comply with Part 32 or the practice direction in relation to its form, the court may refuse to admit it as evidence and may refuse to allow the costs arising from its preparation. Two separate discretions, both permissive. Paragraph 25.2 allows permission to file a defective statement to be sought from a judge.

Note "in relation to its form". Paragraph 25.1 targets formal defects, not evidence a judge dislikes, though rule 32.1 supplies a broader power to exclude. Rule 32.10 deals with timing: where a statement is not served in time, the witness may not be called unless the court gives permission, and if that follows a breach of an order, an application for relief from sanctions is the usual route.

Outright exclusion is rare in practice. The realistic risks are worse in aggregate. Content left out cannot be added at trial without permission under rule 32.5(3). Weak sourcing becomes a cross-examination theme under rule 32.11. Template drafting becomes a finding on credibility.

A pre-signature checklist

• Heading and top right block complete (paras 17.1, 17.2)
• First person, own words so far as practicable, own language, and the paragraph 18.1(1) to (4) identifying details
• Preparation process stated accurately, not by inherited boilerplate (para 18.1(5))
• Own knowledge separated from information and belief, with sources (para 18.2)
• Exhibits verified, identified, kept separate, numbered consecutively (paras 18.3, 18.6)
• Numbered paragraphs and consecutive pagination (para 19.1)
• Nothing the witness could not say orally (rule 32.4(1))
• Statement of truth in the current paragraph 20.2 wording, including the contempt warning
• Signed and dated, any alteration initialled (para 22.1)
• The witness could be cross-examined on any paragraph in it

That last item is not in the rules. It is the one that decides cases.

FAQ

What must every witness statement contain under CPR Part 32?

Rule 32.8 requires compliance with PD 32. Paragraph 18.1 requires the witness's own words where practicable, their own language, the first person, their identifying details, and the process by which the statement was prepared. Paragraph 18.2 requires own knowledge to be separated from information or belief, with sources. Paragraph 20.1 requires a statement of truth.

What happens if a witness statement does not comply with PD 32?

The court has a discretion, not an obligation. Under paragraph 25.1, where a statement is defective in relation to its form, the court may refuse to admit it as evidence and may refuse to allow the costs of preparing it. Paragraph 25.2 allows a judge to permit a defective statement to be filed. Formal defects are more often cured or reflected in costs than met with exclusion.

Does a witness statement have to be in the witness's own words?

So far as practicable, yes. Paragraph 18.1 requires the witness's own words "if practicable", and separately requires, without qualification, their own language. That allows for a solicitor drafting from a proper interview. It does not extend to a template with the claimant's name inserted, as Wiltshire v Aioi [2025] EWCC 13 illustrates.

Do you have to disclose that AI was used to prepare a witness statement?

No rule names AI. Paragraph 18.1(5) requires the preparation process to be stated, and its examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive, so materially AI-assisted drafting should be described accurately. The Civil Justice Council's consultation closed on 14 April 2026 and its July 2026 update showed continuing debate, with a final report due later in 2026. Until then, paragraph 18.1(5) governs.

© LegalDocs Assist — www.legaldocs-assist.co.uk