What evidence do I need to win?

What evidence to gather for a small claims court case, how to prepare a bundle for the hearing, what counts as strong vs weak evidence, and common mistakes.

The four evidence buckets

Sort your evidence into these four piles before you start drafting your case. The judge will work through them in this order at the hearing.

Types of evidence and what each proves

Written records are the backbone of almost every small claim. A signed contract settles the question of what was agreed. An invoice proves what was charged. A series of emails shows the timeline of the dispute and any admissions by the other side. Bank statements prove payment (or non-payment). Always use complete documents — a single page torn from a chain of emails invites the other side to produce the rest, which may be less helpful to you.

Photographs and video

Photos are highly persuasive in goods and building work disputes. A date-stamped photo of a defect taken on the day it was discovered is much stronger than one taken months later. Video is useful where damage is ongoing or movement-related — a leaking pipe, a malfunctioning appliance, a flickering light. Screenshots of online listings or social media adverts should include the URL and date visible in the browser bar.

Your own witness statement is your primary evidence. Write it in the first person, in numbered paragraphs, in plain English. Cover the key events in chronological order. Refer to exhibits by their tab number ("see Exhibit A, the contract dated 3 January 2026"). End with a statement of truth and sign it. An independent witness — someone with no personal stake in the outcome — carries more weight than a family member or close friend.

Expert evidence is genuinely rare in small claims. You need the court's permission before instructing an expert (CPR 35), and the cost must be proportionate to the claim value. For a £3,000 goods claim, a £1,500 surveyor's report is disproportionate. Most small claims judges are willing to draw reasonable inferences from lay photographs and descriptions without expert evidence. Ask yourself whether the technical point is truly beyond a judge's ability to assess from the documents before spending money on an expert.

How to build the bundle

What makes evidence strong vs weak

Editing or annotating original documents

Highlight, but do not delete or write over original messages or documents. Altered evidence destroys your credibility. If the judge or other side notices, it can be fatal to the claim regardless of the underlying merits.

Introducing evidence at the hearing without prior disclosure

The court generally excludes evidence not served on the other side in advance. Surprise documents at the hearing are usually refused. Disclose everything you intend to rely on by the deadline the court sets.

Padding the bundle with irrelevant documents

A 300-page bundle for a £2,000 claim irritates judges. Every document you include should prove a specific point. If you cannot articulate what point a document proves, leave it out.

No index or page numbers

A judge cannot follow references to "the email about the payment" without being able to find it instantly. An un-indexed bundle wastes time and makes you look unprepared. Five minutes spent on an index saves fifteen at the hearing.

What the court expects at the hearing

The judge will have read the papers before the hearing but may not have read every word. They will ask you to introduce yourself, confirm the amount you are claiming, and give a short summary of the dispute. When referring to evidence, say: "Can I take you to Tab 3, the invoice dated 5 March 2026." The judge will turn to it. Do not read the document aloud — assume the judge has read it and highlight the key phrase or figure.

After each side has given evidence, the judge may ask questions. Answer what is asked, briefly and honestly. If you do not know something, say so. If a document contradicts you, acknowledge it and explain the context. Judges can usually tell when someone is being evasive, and it damages credibility far more than the underlying point.