Authenticity of documents and using  transcripts and translations

What is "Authenticity"?

The question of whether a document is authentic is distinct from the question of whether what the document says is accurate. For example, say the other side in litigation had disclosed a copy of letter written to you at some time in the past, which contains a complaint that you had caused an obstruction by parking your car in a particular place at a particular time on a particular date. If you received the letter at the time but you dispute the accuracy of what it says - perhaps you do not consider the way you parked to have caused an obstruction - the letter is still authentic – i.e. it is what it purports to be - a genuine copy of a letter actually written on the date it bears by the person whose name appears in the signature, and sent out the same day or shortly after. If, however, you think that the letter is a fabrication – that it is not a genuine copy of a letter written at the time because, say, you didn’t receive it at the time and it gives as your address an address which you didn’t move to until three years after the date the letter was supposed to have been written - that would be an example of a document which is not authentic. A party might dispute the accuracy of what historical documents say but it is relatively unusual for the authenticity of a document to be challenged.

Tribunal procedure where authenticity is not admitted

Traditionally the courts had very strict rules about under what conditions documents would be admissible as evidence at the final hearing, and each document had to be formally proved. A witness would "produce" the document at the hearing and say on oath what the document was and where it had come from.

Even if little time may be taken up with this in court (because in many courts the witness would simply be confirming that their witness statement producing the document was true) still it involved extra work in taking the statement in the first place - so extra legal costs. And it might be that that particular witness was not required as a witness about anything else so that the only reason for taking a statement was simply to formally produce the document. So court rules were eventually introduced which allowed a party to send the other party, in advance of the final hearing - in fact usually in advance of the earlier exchange of witness statements stage - a notice to admit a document - admit that it was what it purported to be so that the document did not have to be formally proved - with a costs penalty for a party who refused to admit. If the judge at the final hearing, having heard the evidence and cross-examination of the witness, ruled that the refusal to admit had been reasonable in the circumstances then the costs penalty would not apply, but otherwise it would, so each party had an incentive to admit the authenticity of documents, when served with a notice, unless there was a real reason for querying the authenticity of a particular document. 

The general approach now, in the 21st Century, in both civil courts and other civil tribunals, is that documents disclosed by either party, in advance of the final hearing in accordance with the tribunal's directions for disclosure of documents, are by default normally assumed to be authentic unless the other side specifically challenges the authenticity of a particular document when disclosed.

Tribunals have a certain discretion to permit a late challenge to the authenticity of a document - after all it is conceivable that the likelihood that a document is inauthentic might only become apparent as a result of evidence given by witnesses in cross-examination at the final hearing. But generally the tribunal expects challenges to the authenticity of disclosed documents to be made in good time before the Final Hearing Bundle is finalised so that each party knows what is and is not in dispute, and so has an opportunity to prepare for the hearing on that basis. Tribunals do not want to allow a party to be unfairly taken by surprise by another party alleging for the first time at the Final Hearing, or for the first time not long before the Final Hearing, that a document disclosed by the party is not authentic. 

Before the invention of the photocopier the rules of the High Court required each party initially to exchange just a list of relevant documents in their possession or control and the other party (in practice the other party's solicitor) then had the right to physically inspect the documents listed by the other side at the other side's premises (in practice the other side's solicitors' premises) by appointment. They (or in practice a copyist employed by them) could then make manuscript  copies. Alternatively the rules, in the interests of efficiency, allowed a party to request that the other side provide copies of all or selected documents and the other party was obliged to do so if the requesting party agreed to pay the cost of copying. A party could still choose to make a physical inspection of a document but would generally only do that if there was reason to doubt its authenticity (or perhaps where part of a crucial document was faded and difficult for the copyist to decipher).

Nowadays, of course, copies of documents are typically provided as computer files but in the High Court, and usually also in the County Court, there is still the right to physically inspect documents at the disclosure of documents stage by giving notice. Outside the High Court and County Court, in the specialist tribunals, there may be no automatic right to physically inspect documents at the disclosure of documents stage, and no specific deadline to give notice that the authenticity of a particular document is not admitted. But nevertheless a party which has a specific reason to suspect that a document disclosed by the other side is not authentic is generally expected to raise the matter well before the final hearing. Even if a tribunal, when giving directions for disclosure of documents, has given a standard direction that the parties must bring the originals to the final hearing, if a party has a specific reason to suspect that a particular document copy disclosed by the other side is not authentic then they are normally expected to raise that well in advance of the Final Hearing - indeed preferably in advance of the exchange of witness statements stage - by, for example, asking the other side in writing to voluntarily allow them to inspect the original paper document or, in the case of an electronic document, asking them to supply a native copy if one has not already been provided. Once the original document has been inspected/a native copy obtained, a final decision can be taken by the party whether to accept the document disclosed by the other side as authentic or whether to formally state, in good time, that its authenticity is not accepted and that if the other side wishes to use the document at the final hearing it will need to be formally "proved" at the hearing by a witness. In fact, because time is often limited, it is common for the first letter written in such circumstances to state that authenticity is not accepted but that once the original is examined/native copy sent, the matter will be reconsidered, as in this example:

"You have disclosed what purports to be a letter dated 23 May 2021 addressed to me. I did not receive this letter at the time and, whilst letters can occasionally go astray in the post, I note that the letter says that it was also sent to me by email but I did not receive an email copy either. It would be a remarkable co-incidence for a letter to be sent both by post and by email and for neither to arrive. So far you have only disclosed a PDF scan of the letter and I would ask you to send me, within the next 7 days, a native copy of the email by which it purports to also have been sent. I will reconsider my position when you have sent me the native-copy email but, for the moment, I am giving you notice that I do not accept the authenticity of the letter dated 23 May 2021 which you have disclosed and I require it to be proved by a witness at the Final Hearing if you wish to rely on it."    

The modern approach - that a party is usually taken to admit by default that a document disclosed to them is what it purports to be unless they say otherwise - has the potential, in a minority of cases, to cause ambiguity. In most cases it is clear what a document on its face "purports" to be - for example an email sent by the person named as the sender to an certain email address at a certain time on a certain date. But what about a PDF copy of a photo? What exactly does that document "purport" to be? If you do not challenge authenticity are you to be taken to admit merely that it is a genuine photo of something taken sometime with a camera, and that it has not been doctored? Or if the party, when disclosing it, describes it on a disclosure list as a photo of a particular object taken in June 2024, are you to be taken to also admit that it was taken in that month and that the object depicted is the object stated? Under the old system in the 20th Century a party who received a notice to admit could give a qualified response - e.g. that they admit it is a genuine photo of a particular object but do not admit the claimed date. It is important that under the modern approach - where a party is normally taken to admit authenticity unless they say otherwise - that you are alert to the possibility of being taken to admit more than you intended to.  You might need to write like this:

"You have disclosed a PDF copy of a photo which, you state on the disclosure list, was taken in June 2024. However I do not believe this photo was taken in 2024 because...   It may be that it is a photo taken between 2019 and 2022 but I do not believe it to be an authentic photo taken in 2024. If it was taken in 2019 or later then it is likely to have been taken by a camera or phone which recorded the date taken as metadata and I would ask you to send me, within the next 7 days, a native copy so that I can check the metadata. I will reconsider my position when you have sent me the native copy but, for the moment, I am giving you notice that I do not accept the authenticity of the photo in the sense that I do not accept that it is a photo taken in June 2024 as you are claiming." 

In the above examples the other side is asked to take steps to demonstrate the authenticity of a document. If they fail to do so one option is to make a application to the tribunal for an order that the other side allow inspection of the paper original or, in this case, provide a native copy (or perhaps even an order that they supply the original device to a tribunal-approved independent expert for examination). Such an application might be appropriate if the document concerned in crucial - for example if it is likely to play such a pivotal part in the overall outcome of the case that examining it closely with a view to establishing whether it is likely to be authentic or not might mean that one side or the other concedes the case so that the time and expense of a final hearing is saved. Usually, however, the outcome of a case depends on a number of items of evidence and on legal argument and in that case it may be decided not to incur the extra expense of applying to the tribunal for an order but instead simply accept the inclusion of the document in the eventual Final Hearing Bundle (if the other side requires its inclusion) but flagged in such as way that it is clear that if the other side wish to rely on that particular document they will have to prove its authenticity at the final hearing. It is useful if the letter disputing authenticity (and asking for a native copy/physical inspection of the paper original) is actually sent in letter format (perhaps sent by email as an attachment but not actually sent as email text) and deals only with the single question of the authenticity of the particular document, so that when that letter is included in the Final Hearing Bundle the issue is highlighted clearly and concisely. Follow up letters should also be included in the Bundle - e.g. a letter from the other side refusing the request, or a letter from you pointing out that they have not responded and that adverse inferences may be drawn from this etc.). The words **authenticity not admitted** should be added to the description of the document in the bundle index and bookmarks or, if it is just the claimed date of the document which is disputed, **date not admitted**. 

Using metadata-and-image prints of photos

If you need to rely on the date of a particular digital photo you can make a a PDF "print" of the image with accompanying metadata and send that to the other side saying that the print is to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle. This means that you will be presenting the tribunal with evidence of the date (by means of including the image-and-metadata print in the Bundle) and also means that the other side is on notice that you are relying on the metadata so if the other side object they have no excuse for not making their objection known in good time. The second point - making sure that the other side have no excuse for not making their objection known in good time - is particularly pertinent if for some reason the metadata print is just a print of the metadata giving the filename of the file but not actually including the image itself: providing the other side have notice you can expect them to check for themselves that the native copy which you sent to them at the disclosure of documents stage does contain the metadata shown on the print - i.e. that it is a print of the correct file. Surprisingly software which can print image and metadata together is not that common and may not be available for some less used image file types such as HEIC.  

It is possible that you might want to produce an image-and-metadata PDF print of a digital photo (e.g. JPG) disclosed to you by the other side. If you have not been sent the image file itself but only a paper or PDF copy you may want to ask the other side to send you the image file so that you can  look at the metadata and decide whether to create an image-and-metadata PDF print and send it to the other side. You might want to do this if the photo significantly helps your case. You might also want to do this if the photo potentially harms your case but the metadata proves that it was not taken when the other side claims it was - or if the metadata is incomplete casting doubt on its reliability. In a situation like this you need to ensure that words are included in the bundle index and bookmarks making clear that it is you who have produced the image-and-metadata print but it has been produced from an image file disclosed by the other side.

Tribunals do not want to allow a party to be unfairly taken by surprise by another party producing things at the last minute and so far as possible any PDF image-and-metadata PDF print should be produced and sent before the deadline for disclosure of documents (or as soon as possible thereafter) notwithstanding that the PDF print simply shows, in a convenient form, metadata within the already disclosed in the image file.  

Using metadata prints of video files and using snapshots

The same principles apply to metadata prints of video files. A metadata print-to-file can be produced using this procedure to be sent to the other side preferably before the deadline for disclosure of documents or as soon as possible thereafter.

It is normally possible for arrangements to be made for specific video files to be played at the final hearing but playing video files can be time consuming and so tribunals generally prefer it if the point which a party is seeking to make from a video file can be made mainly - or preferably solely - by reference to static documents which can actually be included in the Final Hearing Bundle along with the metadata print. 

If the current state of land or of some object (such as a piece of machinery) is relevant then it is usually better if a series of photos can be taken rather than take a video. If evidence of the past state of land or some object is relevant then the parties are limited to what photos and/or videos were taken at the relevant time in the past. If there are historical photos which demonstrate all necessary details at the relevant date in the past then a party will not need to rely on videos taken at the same time as well. (A video file will still need to be disclosed if relevant if the tribunal has ordered all relevant document to be disclosed, but it may be that neither party will need to use it at the hearing.)  

If, however, an important detail is shown on a historical video, and no suitable photo of the same detail taken at the time is available, then one or more snapshots can be taken of the relevant frames in the video, and those static snapshots can be included in the Final Hearing Bundle. Different tribunals have different specific rules but the general approach is that a party which intends to rely on particular frames of a video is expected to make that clear in advance by doing more than simply sending a native copy of the video file to the other side at the disclosure of documents stage. Generally they are expected to take the relevant snapshots from the video and send those to the other side, along with the video at the Disclosure of Documents stage, or separately but not too long afterwards, so that the other party has the opportunity to check that they are from the disclosed video and that they do not, by unfair selection, misrepresent what the full video shows, hopefully avoiding the need for the video itself to actually be played at the final hearing. 

When making snapshots of key frames in a video, do so in such a way that the the snapshot image contains the number of minutes and seconds into the video that the snapshot is taken, and that the snapshot image includes the filename of the video.

If the video is a recording of a meeting and it is actually the audio track which is relevant then minutes or a transcript may be needed - see below.

Establishing accuracy of translations

Since 1730 all legal proceedings in England and Wales have been in the English language (apart from certain proceedings in Wales or connected with Wales which may be conducted in the Welsh language). This means that if a party wishes to rely on a document which is in a foreign language, a written translation in English will need to be provided in the Final Hearing Bundle together with the foreign language document itself. So as well as establishing the authenticity of the foreign language document, the party which wishes to rely on it has to establish that the translation is accurate. 

Although it ultimately depends on the rules of the particular tribunal concerned, the normal procedure, in this situation, will be that the wording of the English translation would be agreed between the parties. If the translation of certain passage cannot be agreed then each party’s proposed translation of that passage should be included in the English translation, suitably marked.

Usually it is the party which wishes to rely on the foreign language document which will make a translation and send the translation to the other side asking for the other side to confirm that it is agreed, but  sometimes one party will already have a made a translation of a document (the translation may have been made in the ordinary course of events in the past or the party may have translated it as part of preparing for legal proceedings and then decided not to use it because it does not assist their own case) in which case it makes sense for the party which already has a translation to send that to the other side.    

Often the document which needs to be translated is a letter or other communication between the parties themselves (rather than with a third party or between third parties) and it can be expected that both parties understand the foreign language in question (as well as understanding English) so that the receiving party should have no difficulty in checking the translation and, if they do query any particular passage,  it should be possible for the parties to reach agreement on a better translation of that passage.

It might be, however, that the foreign language document is a document which was sent by one party to a third party (or received from a third party, or sent between third parties) so that the other party does not necessarily understand the language in which it is written. The other party could, for example, check the translation using Google Translate. Of course Google Translate is by no means perfect but might be considered to be sufficient if the document is not considered by the other party to be crucial to the case. If the document is long it is good practice for the key passages to be relied on to be identified when the proposed translation is being sent by the party wishing to rely on it to the other side.

If a party refuses, or does not feel able, to engage voluntarily in agreeing the translation of a foreign language document which the other side wishes to rely on, then directions may need to be sought from the tribunal as to the appropriate course. It may be that a certified translation will need to be produced by a professional translator.

Note: that if the foreign language document is actually the statement of a witness who will be giving evidence at the final hearing then special rules apply to both the translation of such statements (normally a certified translation is required) and to the simultaneous translation of that witness's oral evidence, and the above procedures about agreeing a translation will not apply to the witness statement itself (but would still apply to documents referred to in the statement).  

Establishing accuracy of transcripts of audio files

It is normally possible for arrangements to be made for specific audio files to be played at the final hearing but playing audio files can be time consuming and so tribunals generally prefer it if the point which a party is seeking to make from an audio file can be made mainly - or preferably solely - by reference to static documents which can actually be included in the Final Hearing Bundle, with the audio file available as well to be played if and when there is any query about particular words/tone of voice etc.

If a business meeting was recorded and minutes were then produced at the time, and both parties are able to agree that the minutes are a fair reflection  of what was said and decided at the meeting, then those minutes can be included in the Final Hearing Bundle and a party may then not need to rely on the audio recording, nor need a verbatim transcript.  (The audio file will still need to be disclosed if relevant if the tribunal has ordered all relevant documents to be disclosed, but it may be that neither party will need it to be to use it at the final hearing.)  

If no minutes were produced at the time (or if they were but one party maintains that they are inaccurate and/or do not record certain important matters) then a transcript of the audio recording can be made to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle.  

It is desirable that the wording of any transcript to be made is agreed between the parties. If the transcript is not agreed before the final hearing and it becomes necessary to play the audio file because there is a dispute over the transcript then that reduces the value of using a transcript. If there is some particular passage which is indistinct and the parties cannot agree on a word, then each party's version should be set out. If the difference is important then that part of the audio recording can be played at the hearing. But it should be possible to agree the vast majority of what the audio recording contains.    

Sometimes the whole of the recording is relevant but if, for example, there is a conversation between people on friendly terms they may break off from talking "business" (e.g. a discussion of a business transaction which is now in dispute) to discuss social matters irrelevant to what the current dispute is about. In this case you should be able to agree with the other side that the transcript can simply summarise in a few words the irrelevant conversation (e.g. “general conversation about the how the English cricket team is doing”) and only set out verbatim the relevant conversation.   

Because of the need to try to agree the transcript, and because whether or not a transcript is needed may be depend on what documents the other side discloses, a party intending to rely on an audio recording is (depending on the rules and directions of the specific tribunal) not necessarily expected to have a transcript ready at the Disclosure of Documents stage  when they disclose the audio file itself but they should, if they then decide that they wish to rely on an audio recording, start the process of producing and trying to agree the transcript as soon as possible after the Disclosure of Documents stage. Of course it could be the side which the recording is disclosed to which wishes to rely on it it which case, again, they should start the process of producing and trying to agree the transcript as soon as possible after the Disclosure of Documents stage. 

Ideally the party relying on a transcription should send it to the other side with an express request for agreement within a reasonable time. If the document is quite long the key passages relied on should be identified so that the other side can concentrate on these. If the transcription is agreed, well and good. But if not, directions may need to be sought from the tribunal. There may be occasions where the side which wishes to rely on the recording is at a disadvantage in producing a transcription -  for example the recording may be poor quality and the other side may have been present when the recording was made and made notes. It that case the party who wishes to rely on the recording could ask the tribunal for directions requiring  the other side to produce the transcript, but normally it is the party wishing to rely on a recording which will need to produce the transcript and send it to the other side for agreement.

The date of the meeting

If there are no agreed minutes (or if the agreed minutes are, for some reason, undated) and the parties cannot agree the date of the meeting, a metadata print-to-file can be produced using this procedure to be sent to the other side and to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle.

 Disclaimer

The information above is necessarily of a general nature and will not be applicable to every case: it is intended to be used in conjunction with more specific advice to the individual client about the individual case. Contact me for advice about your case.

The information on this page about specific computer techniques is provided for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate and up to date at the time it was written but no responsibility for its accuracy, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by me. You should satisfy yourself, before using any of the techniques, software or services described, that the techniques are appropriate for your purposes and that the software or service is reliable.

This page was lasted updated in August 2026. Disclaimer.