Lost in translation: can you translate your own court evidence?

A few weeks ago a client involved in civil proceedings contacted me asking if the opposing party could submit their own translations of evidence if translations were done by Google Translate, without any certification.

Common sense would, of course, say no. While you can self-certify yourself as ill for a week at your place of work, should you really be able to self-certify translations of your own documents? There are also specific Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions that apply in England and Wales.

Specifically, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 23.2 states that where a witness statement is in a foreign language, the party relying on it must have it translated and file the foreign-language statement with the court. The translator must sign the original statement and certify that the translation is accurate.

Exhibits to witness statements and affidavits also fall within Practice Direction 32. Paragraph 25.1 provides that where an affidavit, witness statement or an exhibit to either does not comply with Part 32 or the Practice Direction in relation to its form, the court may refuse to admit it as evidence.

In the case of Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824, the High Court judgement confirms that failure to comply with the requirements for a foreign-language witness statement may result in the court refusing to admit it as evidence.

The rules do not specifically forbid using machine translations, however, if the other party claims that the translation is inaccurate, the court may have to decide what weight to give it – if at all, and a professionally translated version may become preferrable.

Even in professionally translated documents, there may be arguments about the specific phrasing used. In Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Azitio Holdings Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1844, witnesses were being cross-examined about English translations of Russian documents. It was observed that “a word or phrase... could (and sometimes should) have been translated differently”.

As it happens, my client won the case for different reasons - Henderson v Henderson (abuse of court process), but it was worth exploring the entire issue, especially in the age of rapid AI development.

In August 2026, the College of Policing published national guidance stating that generative AI must not be used to create, review, edit or generate material forming part of the evidential process unless specifically approved under the relevant governance arrangements. The guidance warns that AI-generated output may be inaccurate, incomplete, outdated or biased.

We’ll keep a close eye on the final report of the Civil Justice Council too as it’s currently considering the use of AI in preparing court documents.

[Tip: Need to have your court evidence translated from Russian into English? Use our Contact page to send your request.]