Statements of case

Statements of case

The statements of case in a claim form the main documents that set out parties’ positions in the matter and also enable the court to manage the claim. Statements of case are sometimes referred to as ‘pleadings’. Which documents comprise ‘statements of case’ is set out in CPR 2.3(1).

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) contain rules setting out what the statements of case must contain, and this will in many cases depend on the nature of the claim as well as the type of statement of case involved. It must also include a statement of truth. For further guidance on drafting statements of case, see Practice Note: Drafting statements of case.

Statements of case must be verified by a statement of truth (CPR 22.1(1)(a)). Statements of truth are used to confirm that the person signing the document has an honest belief in the accuracy and content of the document that is being signed. The CPR set out the exact wording that must be used, and who must sign the statement of truth, including where a solicitor may sign on behalf of their client.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Court of Appeal—application of service gateways to misuse of trade secret claims (Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime SIA)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision permitting Playtech to serve trade secrets and copyright proceedings on Latvian defendants Realtime SIA and Igors Veliks outside the jurisdiction. Playtech alleged that Veliks accessed confidential pre-release game information via the Horizon platform after leaving its Latvian affiliate and that Realtime used this information to develop competing games. However, it was held that all alleged acts occurred in Latvia and that Playtech’s claimed UK losses were merely indirect economic effects. As a result, the claim failed to pass through Gateway 21, which requires direct damage within the jurisdiction or an English-law obligation of confidence. Applying Rome II, Latvian law governed the claim. The Court of Appeal also found that England was not the appropriate forum for the related copyright claim, whose centre of gravity was likewise Latvia. Permission to serve out was therefore set aside.

The limits of the iniquity exception to legal professional privilege in case of entrapment (Pliego v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this significant case concerning legal professional privilege and litigation conduct, the High Court addressed the limits of investigating alleged fraud through covert means. The claimants, pursuing a substantial stock-lending fraud claim, employed investigators who secretly recorded meetings with the defendants’ litigation solicitor under false pretences. While the court acknowledged a strong prima facie fraud case against the defendants, it held that the claimants’ entrapment tactics constituted an abuse of process. Rather than striking out the entire claim, the court adopted a balanced approach by striking out only the summary judgment application while allowing the substantive fraud claim to proceed. The case provides important guidance on the boundaries between legitimate fraud investigation and improper interference with legal professional privilege, emphasising that entrapment of an opponent’s legal representative crosses a fundamental line in civil litigation. Practical implications written by Lauren Godfrey of Gatehouse Chambers.

Ex-Playtech staffer winsapplication todismiss trade secrets case

Law360, London: A former Playtech employee and the Latvian company he now works for succeeded in throwing out the gambling company's accusations of misuse of trade secrets and copyright infringement on 21 November 2025, with the Court of Appeal saying the case does not belong in the English courts.

Court considers limits of the court’s jurisdiction to retrospectively extend time for the service of proceedings (Galliford Try Construction v Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case confirms the dangers of parties seeking to extend the deadline for service of the claim Form and particulars retrospectively. The argument that the defendants had impliedly agreed to the extension was not made out and, in any event, a retrospective extension will only be granted under CPR 7.6 (3) where the claimant has taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to serve the claim form (where the onus is on them to do so). The claimant had taken no such steps to serve in advance of the expiry of the deadline and, accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application. Further, this case confirms that, while CPR 2.11 allows parties to vary the time specified to undertake an act by written agreement, to be effective, a stay must be pursuant to an order of the court. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel at Capita.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News