Statement of Truth in Hong Kong litigaiton
According to Order 41A of Rules of the High Court/ District Court and Practice Direction 19.3, a pleading in a civil litigation, a witness statement, an expert report and any other document in Hong Kong that requires verification by a statement of truth under any other provisions of the law or practice directions must be verified by a Statement of Truth. The person who signed the Statement of Truth must believe that the description on the documents is true; otherwise, the signing of a Statement of Truth would have legal consequence. The aforesaid rule, mutatis mutandis, also applies to matrimonial proceedings/petition, defence or answer, joint application, originating summons, statement of the welfare of the family children, questionnaires / requests for further and better particulars.
What is Statement of Truth in Hong Kong litigation ？
As its names implies, statements of truth are written verification of the statement maker. The signor verified the factual content of the document is accurate and true. It the content involves opinion, the statement maker honestly held such view.
Who should sign the Statement of Truth in Hong Kong litigation?
Statement of truth shall generally be signed by the person who made the legal document, or under certain circumstances, signed by his legal representative. For example, if the plaintiff is an individual, he shall sign the statement of truth himself. If it is a limited company or a corporation, it shall be signed by its director, manager, company secretary or other persons with similar senior position in the business. If it is a partnership, it shall be signed by a partner or any person in charge of the management of the partnership.
The statement of truth on the facts of a case shall generally be signed by the person with personal knowledge of the facts and not by his legal representative, as usually the legal representative would not be factually involved. Under special circumstances, if the content involves personal handling or encounter of a legal representative, such as some procedural matter handled by the solicitor, or the solicitor or the staff of the firm has made the document, it can be signed by the legal representative.
Language and Form of Statement of Truth in Hong Kong litigaiton
The statement of truth shall be in the language of the statement maker. If the person going to sign the statement of truth does not understand the language of the document, it is necessary to translate for him and the translator of the statement of truth to certify that he or she has translated the contents of the document to the statement maker, and the statement maker appears to understand and approved its content as accurate, the statement of truth and the
consequences of making a false statement.
If a maker of a statement of truth cannot read, then before he signs, the document shall be read to him by an authorized person who certified that the document and the statement of truth being read, and he appears to understand the content of the document, approves the accuracy of the content of the document and understand the consequences of making a false statement.
A statement of truth can appear at the end of the relevant document, or it can be a separate document called Statement of Truth.
Legal consequence of failure to verify by a Statement of Truth
A pleading without statement of truth is liable to be struck out by a court order. If a witness statement or an expert report is lack of statement of truth, the statement or the report cannot be adduced as evidence. The court can order the person failing to sign a statement of truth in accordance with Order 41A to verify the content of the document.
Changes brought by statement of truth In HCA3197/2016, the plaintiff chose to plead two claims which are factually impossible under a statement of truth. The Court would consider this is an abuse and reject one of the versions.
Legal Consequences of a false statement
The purpose for the legal requirement of a statement of truth is to put the legal responsibility to verify the contents on the parties, the expert witnesses and the witnesses towards the document. Rule 9 of Order 41A, Rules of High Court stipulates that proceedings for contempt of court may be brough by the Secretary for Justice or a person aggrieved by the false statement with the leave of the court against a person if he 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, and he would be liable to fine and imprisonment.
In the case of MATHNASIUM CENTER LICENSING, LLC v CHANG CHI HUNG, CACV 180/2019; CACV 406/2019, the Court of Appeal first made a judgment on breach of statement of truth on a pleading guilty of contempt of court. The Court of Appeal confirmed that a breach of Order 41A rule 9 would be guilty of contempt of court. On the other hand, for such liability for contempt of court, the false admissions must be clear and unqualified. In the context of that case, the Court of Appeal find that the admissions by the defendant on the defence was not clear and unqualified and the defendant was not guilty of contempt of court.
For any enquiries on litigation, please contact our litigation team of Messrs. Yan Lawyers.