The Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 (CPR) place the court under a duty to restrict evidence to what is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.

Rule 32.1 regulates evidence of fact and rule 35.1 regulates expert evidence.

A judge, when giving directions and at the trial, may limit the parties' right to introduce admissible evidence and to cross-examine their opponent's witnesses.When the court exercises these powers it must observe the part 1 over-riding objective, to ensure that the claim is dealt with justly.Late againRule 32.10 says what happens when a party fails to comply with an order for the service of a witness statement.

There are two main sanctions.The rule 32.10 sanction is familiar and lays to rest Beachley Property Ltd v Edgar (1996) The Times, 18 July CA and Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Sandoes (1996), The Times 27 December CA.

If a witness statement is not served as the court directs, the intended witness may not be called to give evidence at the trial.Rule 3.4 (2) is new.

There is now power to strike out a claim or defence if there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order and to make consequential orders such as a judgment and for costs.The defaulter may apply for relief against any sanction.

Rule 3.9 contains a checklist of matters for the court to consider that are similar to the Bannister guidelines (Bannister v SGB [1997] 4 All ER 129).Act promptly, give an acceptable explanation for the default and produce the missing witness statement.

The deciding question may be whether the original trial date can be met if the relief is given.Heads, bodies and footersParagraph 17 of the part 32 practice direction sets out the heading of the statement, paragraph 18 describes the body.

Every witness statement:-- must if practicable, be in the intended witness's own words.

The statement should be expressed in the first person;-- must not discuss legal propositions;-- must indicate which statements are made from the witness's own knowledge and which are matters of information or belief and indicate the source of that information or belief - who said what to whom and when;-- Must identify relevant documents but not comment on them.

In the age of the word processor it is suggested that lawyers hold the exhibits together with a paper fastener other than green ribbon and put an index at the front of the bundle.Every witness must sign their statement 'I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true'.Paragraph 20 also sets out modifications to the statement of truth where the witness cannot sign, is blind or illiterate.

The opponent may put the witness statement before the court as hearsay evidence, if the witness is not called at the trial to give evidence (see below).Ipissima verbaWitness statements, while essential to 'cards on the table' litigation, pose problems.

Statements do substantially shorten trials but they add to the cost of those claims that do not reach trial.Fear that the judge will not allow the witnesses to depart from or amplify their statements at the trial when giving evidence in chief, has led to witness statements becoming overlong and to a new and costly branch of legal drafting.

It is a disaster if the witness is exposed as being unable to read the statement settled by the solicitor or counsel.Not to use the witness's own language unfairly puts the witness's credibility in peril.

Judicial training has emphasised Lord Woolf's recommendation.Judges should allow a witness to amplify and depart from the letter of the statement where it is reasonable to do so.

If judges adopt a flexible approach it should discourage excessive efforts to paint the lily.

Grossly over-drafted statements should be drawn to the attention of a judge dealing with case management business.Proportionality must apply, particularly to drafting statements.

Why should the court not accept statements in the form of answers to questionnaires, insurance claim forms and statements the witnesses have written themselves for small claims hearings?The same over-riding principles apply to the trial tracks.

Provided that relevant detail is included, a statement in a summary form should be enough in lower value claims.Won't talk, won't signRule 32.9 allows a summary of the evidence the witness is expected to give where a p arty has not been able to obtain a written statement from that witness.The court's permission is not required but the summary must be served at the same time as the witness statements are exchanged.

This rule allows evidence, foreshadowed but not published in a statement, to be given at trial.I say hearsayThe general rule remains that the evidence of witnesses proves facts.

Under the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (CEA), hearsay evidence is admissible with the minimum formality.How much weight the court puts on hearsay depends on the intrinsic qualities of that evidence.

There is no longer any need to go to the expense of editing a witness statement to remove hearsay.The hearsay evidence can either be repeated to the court by a witness while giving evidence or produced as a separate witness statement.

Rule 33.2 requires that a section 2(1)(a) CEA notice must be served no later than the date for serving the witness statements and it must state that the witness will not be called to give evidence and give the reason why.Within 14 days of the service of a hearsay notice, the other party may apply to the court for permission to call the witness who made the hearsay statement to be cross-examined.Evidence in proceedings other than at trialRule 33.3 excludes the need to serve a hearsay notice when the hearsay evidence will be given at other hearings which include applications for procedural orders, such as an application for further information (part 18) and an application for an interim injunction (a part 25 interim remedy).

Individual rules and practice directions say whether supporting evidence is required.The general rule is that at hearings other than trial a party may rely on written evidence.

The supporting evidence may appear in the application notice, statement of case or in a separate witness statement.

Whatever forms it takes, it must be verified by a statement of truth.Nothing can prevent a party from filing an affidavit, but, unless a court order, the CPR or some other authority such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 require an affidavit, the costs of attestation will not be recoverable.