The Issue
A party relying on a document must prove its authenticity if the other party challenges it. CPR 32.19 provides that a party is deemed to admit authenticity of disclosed documents unless notice is served requiring proof. Once notice is served, the burden of proving authenticity passes to the relying party. It does not reverse simply because the challenging party cannot immediately produce counter-proof — particularly where the counter-proof route depends on disclosure that has been refused.
The Law: How It Should Operate
CPR 32.19 — once a party requires proof of authenticity, the relying party must prove it. The burden does not reverse. On fraud and forgery allegations, this burden is particularly important: the party seeking to enforce a disputed instrument must prove it was properly executed. A forensic overlay analysis showing identical signature pages across different instruments is evidence that authenticity is in issue, not mere assertion.
How It Operated in Lawrence v HNW Lending Ltd
The court treated the burden of proving inauthenticity as resting on Ms Lawrence, rather than the burden of proving authenticity resting on HNW. The absence of the execution file — which HNW alone could produce — was used against Ms Lawrence rather than as a basis for adverse inference against HNW. The forensic evidence of identical signature pages was not tested before or at the strike-out stage.
"The question is not whether one court reached one adverse result. It is that the same failure of protection recurred across courts, tribunals, administration, policing and oversight — making the pattern visible only because the case passed through so many forums."
— Open Letter to the Lord Chancellor, 15 May 2026