Hubbry Logo
Civil Procedure RulesCivil Procedure RulesMain
Open search
Civil Procedure Rules
Community hub
Civil Procedure Rules
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Rules
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Civil Procedure Rules 1998
Statutory Instrument
coat of arms
Parliament of the United Kingdom
CitationSI 1998/3132
Territorial extent England and Wales
Dates
Made10 December 1998
Laid before Parliament17 December 1998
Commencement24 April 1999 (1999-04-24)
Other legislation
Made under
  • Civil Procedure Act 1997
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) were introduced in 1997 as per the Civil Procedure Act 1997[1] by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and are the rules of civil procedure used by the Court of Appeal, High Court of Justice, and the County Court in civil cases in England and Wales. They apply to all cases commenced after 26 April 1999, and largely replace the Rules of the Supreme Court and the County Court Rules. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) is the statutory instrument listing the rules.[2]

The CPR were designed to improve access to justice by making legal proceedings cheaper, quicker, and easier to understand for non-lawyers. As a consequence of this, many former, older legal terms were replaced with "plain English" equivalents, such as "claimant" for "plaintiff" and "witness summons" for "subpoena".

Unlike the previous rules of civil procedure, the CPR commence with a statement of their "overriding objective", both to aid in the application of specific provisions and to guide behaviour where no specific rule applies.

History

[edit]

In 1994, the Lord Chancellor instructed the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf, to report on options to consolidate the existing rules of civil procedure.

On 16 June 1995, Lord Woolf published an interim report on Access to Justice.[3] The interim report was the subject of extensive academic commentary. For example, American law professor Richard Marcus Jr. pointed out that the interim report was clearly inspired by the experience of the US federal courts with case management, which grew out of their experience with managing complex litigation. During the 1960s, a massive antitrust scandal in the American electrical equipment industry had led to the enactment of a multidistrict litigation statute in 1968 and the creation of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In 1969, the panel published the Manual on Complex Litigation, which proposed that American judges should take a more active role in the management and development of complex cases during the pretrial phase of litigation. This recommendation touched off the case management movement of the 1970s and 1980s in American courts.[4]

On 26 July 1996, Lord Woolf published his final Access to Justice Report 1996[5] in which he "identified a number of principles the civil justice system should meet to ensure access to justice. The system should –

  1. be just in the results it delivers;
  2. be fair in the way it treats litigants;
  3. offer appropriate procedures at a reasonable cost;
  4. deal with cases with reasonable speed;
  5. be understandable to those who use it;
  6. be responsive to the needs of those who use it;
  7. provide as much certainty as the nature of particular cases allows; and
  8. be effective: adequately resourced and organised".[6] (Italics in the original.)

Lord Woolf listed two of the requirements of case management as "fixing timetables for the parties to take particular steps in the case; and limiting disclosure and expert evidence".[7]

The second thread of the report was to control the cost of litigation, both in time and money, by focusing on key issues rather than every possible issue[8] and limiting the amount of work that has to be done on the case.[9]

The report was accompanied by draft rules of practice designed to implement Lord Woolf's proposals. These rules granted wide management powers to the court,[10] proposed that cases be allocated to one of three tracks depending on their nature, limiting or requiring specific actions, and introduced the concept of proportionality to the costs regime.

Civil Procedure Act 1997
Act of Parliament
coat of arms
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long titleAn Act to amend the law about civil procedure in England and Wales; and for connected purposes.
Citation1997 c. 12
Territorial extent England and Wales
Dates
Royal assent27 February 1997
Other legislation
Amends
Amended byConstitutional Reform Act 2005
Status: Amended
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Civil Procedure Act 1997 (c. 12) was enacted on 27 February 1997. It conferred the power to make civil procedure rules. It also established the Civil Justice Council, a body composed of members of the judiciary, members of the legal professions and civil servants, and charged with reviewing the civil justice system.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) were made on 10 December 1998 and came into force on 26 April 1999. The draft rules of practice formed their core.

Contents

[edit]

The overriding objective

[edit]

Implemented as a result of reforms suggested by Lord Woolf and his committee, one of the innovations of the rules is the "overriding objective" embodied in Part 1 of the Rules, which states:

  • 1.1
    • (1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
    • (2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –
      • (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
      • (b) saving expense;
      • (c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
        • (i) to the amount of money involved;
        • (ii) to the importance of the case;
        • (iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
        • (iv) to the financial position of each party;
      • (d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
      • (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.
  • 1.2
    • The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it –
      • (a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or
      • (b) interprets any rule.

The rules are written to be intelligible not just to lawyers but also to litigants in person.

Part 2: Application and interpretation of the rules

[edit]

The part provides for interpretation of a number of terms used throughout the CPR, the roles of court staff and judges, and issues concerned with time durations and limits.[11] Rule 2.11 is one of a number of rules which make provision for the parties to a dispute to vary the certain rules by written agreement.[12]

Part 3: General powers of the court

[edit]

Part 3.1 incorporates a general court power to "extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction or court order".[13]

Part 6: service of documents

[edit]

Part 6 identifies the valid ways in which legal documents in general, and specifically a claim form, may be served. Personal service to an individual or to an organisation involves giving the document to the individual, to "a person holding a senior position within the company or corporation" or, in the case of a in a business partnership, to one of the partners or to a person who exercises "control or management" of the partnership at its principal place of business.[14]

Part 7: service of a claim form

[edit]

Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant (CPR 7.2). Service of a claim form must take place within four months of the date when the claim form is issued, or within six months if it is to be issued outside the jurisdiction of the court,[15] i.e. outside England and Wales and any part of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom adjoining England and Wales.[16]

Part 8: application for a judicial declaration

[edit]

Part 8 allows for claimants to seek one or more judicial declarations as an alternative to issuing a claim form.[17]

Part 17: amending a claim

[edit]

An addition to or substitution of material in relation to a claim which has already been made is permitted under this part, including where the relevant limitation period has already expired, but a new claim cannot be made outside the relevant period of limitation unless it arises out of "the same facts or substantially the same facts" as the preceding claim.[18]

Part 31: disclosure

[edit]

Part 31 deals with disclosure and inspection of documents. Two types of disclosure are "standard disclosure" and "specific disclosure".[19]

Assessing proportionality

[edit]

Two approaches to the assessment of proportionality arose in the case of West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust (2019), in particular on appeal from the initial trial. The appeal judges referred to a "debate between the parties as to whether a proportionality challenge was limited to the circumstances of the particular case ('the narrower interpretation'), or whether it was to be assessed by reference to all the circumstances, and so encompass matters which were not necessarily related to the case in question ('the wider interpretation')". On a reading of CPR 44, which contains general rules about costs, it was felt to be clear that "questions of proportionality are to be considered by reference to the specific matters noted in 44.3(5) and, if relevant, any wider circumstances identified under r. 44.4(1). Accordingly, the wider interpretation is correct."[20]

Tracks

[edit]

Small Claims Track

[edit]

Claims with a value of not more than £10,000 (the amount increased on 1 April 2013) are usually allocated to the Small Claims Track unless: the amount claimed for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity[21] is more than £1,000.00;[22] or the cost of the repairs or other work to residential premises claimed against the landlord by a tenant is estimated to be more than £1,000 – whether or not they are also seeking another remedy – or the financial value of any claim in addition to those repairs is more than £1,000.[23]

A claim for a remedy for harassment or unlawful eviction relating to residential premises will not be allocated to the Small Claims Track even if it meets the financial limits.[24]

Fast Track

[edit]

Claims with a financial value of no more than £25,000 (£15,000 for claims issued before 6 April 2009) for which the Small Claims Track is not the normal track are usually allocated to the Fast Track[25] unless: the trial is likely to last for more than one day;[26] oral expert evidence at trial will be in more than two fields; or there will be more than one expert per party in each field.[27]

Multi Track

[edit]

Any case not allocated to either the Small Claims Track or the Fast Track is allocated to the Multi Track.[28]

Pre-action Protocols

[edit]

To support the ethos of narrowing the issues prior to the use of proceedings and encapsulate best practice, the CPR introduced "pre-action protocols". They are given force by the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols.[29]

Purpose

[edit]

Pre-action protocols outline the steps that parties should take in particular types of disputes to seek information from, and to provide information to, each other prior to making a legal claim, with the complainant setting out their claim in full to the defendant and both parties making an attempt to negotiate a settlement. The emphasis is placed on co-operation to identify the main issues. Failure to co-operate may lead to cost penalties, regardless of the eventual outcomes of the case.

Paragraph 1 of the Practice Direction defines the purpose of pre-action protocols as:

  • encouraging the early exchange of all information relating to the prospective legal claim
  • aiding settlement of the claim without the commencement of proceedings
  • producing a foundation for efficient case management where litigation cannot be avoided

Current pre-action protocols

[edit]
Protocol Publication Came into Force
Construction and Engineering Disputes September 2000 Second edition came into force on 9 November 2016.[29]
Defamation September 2000 2 October 2000
Disease and Illness Claims September 2003 8 December 2003
Disrepair Cases September 2003 8 December 2003
Judicial Review 3 December 2001 4 March 2002
Amended 1 July 2013[30]
Personal Injury Claims January 1999 26 April 1999
Possession claims based on Rent Arrears September 2006 2 October 2006
Professional Negligence May 2001 16 July 2001
Resolution of Clinical Disputes
(previously called Clinical Negligence)		 January 1999 26 April 1999

Penalties

[edit]

Paragraph 2 indicates that the Court may add terms to any order if it feels a party has breached a protocol. These will place parties in the same position as if the breach had not occurred (or as close as possible).

The court may, amongst other remedies, order that the party in breach:

  • pay some or all of the costs of another party
  • pay costs to another party on an indemnity rather than standard basis
  • pay a higher rate of interest on particular damages awarded, or for a particular period.
  • forgo interest on a particular item of damages or for a period.

For instance, where a party commences proceedings prior to supplying important information to the other party(s) then the Court might disallow interest for the period prior to the information being provided.

In addition, the protocol might provide grounds to show a party had or had not behaved so unreasonably as to merit penalty under another Rule (for instance CPR 44.3).

Cases not covered by a protocol

[edit]

Where no protocol has been published Paragraph 4 states that parties should conform to CPR 1 and the Overriding Objective.

It also sets out what would normally be considered reasonable behaviour prior to issue.

Where a case has been commenced prior to the protocol coming into force, but after publication the protocol is not binding. However, the degree to which a party has attempted to follow it anyway might be persuasive.

Creation of the Rules

[edit]

Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 requires that the CPR are made by a committee called the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.[31] Members of the committee consist of:

Ex officio:

  • the Master of the Rolls/Head of Civil Justice
  • the Deputy Head of Civil Justice (if there is one)

Those appointed by the Lord Chief Justice:

Those appointed by the Lord Chancellor:

  • three persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (CLSA)), including at least one with particular experience of practice in the County Court
  • Three persons who have been authorised by a relevant approved regulator to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Senior Courts, including at least one with particular experience of practice in the County Court
  • two persons with experience in and knowledge of the lay advice sector or consumer affairs.

The Lord Chancellor's appointments are made in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and all authorised bodies which have members who are eligible for appointment.

Rulemaking procedure

[edit]

Rules must be approved by at least eight members of the committee, and submitted to the Lord Chancellor who may allow or disallow them. Where he decides to disallow, he must express his reasons for doing so in writing.

[edit]

England and Wales began to diverge from the common law (and from other common law jurisdictions) with the Rules of the Supreme Court in 1883, which replaced the traditional "complaint" and "answer" with the "statement of claim" and "defence".

The CPR went much further by replacing several dozen traditional legal terms. For example, the "writ of summons" and the "statement of claim" were replaced, respectively, with "claim form" and "particulars of claim".

The CPR implemented a new system of radically different legal terminology in order to bring plain English to the legal system of England and Wales.[32] This was intended to help laypersons comprehend legal terms more easily and to make the judicial process faster and less expensive.[32] However, Bryan A. Garner has noted that the new system seems to have replaced "old jargon with new, even less-comprehensible jargon".[33]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Civil Procedure Rules

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) form the comprehensive procedural framework regulating civil litigation in the , encompassing proceedings in the , , and Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. Enacted as a under section 1 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, the CPR took effect on 26 April 1999, fundamentally reforming the by replacing the antiquated Rules of the Supreme Court (1965) and County Court Rules (1981) in response to widespread concerns over excessive delays, high costs, and procedural rigidity identified in Lord Woolf's interim and final reports. At their core, the CPR articulate an overriding objective in Part 1 to enable courts to resolve disputes justly, which entails dealing with cases expeditiously and fairly while actively managing them to save expense, ensure proportionality to the financial value and complexity of the issues, and encourage parties to settle meritorious claims without litigation where possible. This objective underpins key innovations such as mandatory pre-action protocols to promote early and resolution, robust judicial case management powers (including track allocation for fast, multi, or small claims), standardized disclosure and evidence rules, and sanctions for non-compliance, including adverse costs orders. The rules have undergone frequent amendments—over 190 practice direction updates by 2025—to address practical shortcomings, such as adapting to digital filing, remote hearings post-, and evolving case types like group litigation, though empirical assessments indicate persistent challenges in fully curbing litigation costs and complexity despite the reforms' intent to streamline processes.

Historical Development

Pre-CPR Civil Litigation Landscape

Prior to the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999, civil litigation in operated under a fragmented framework dominated by an adversarial model, where parties and their legal representatives primarily dictated the progression of cases with minimal judicial intervention. The proceedings were governed by the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 (RSC), which had evolved from earlier 19th-century precedents and emphasized formal pleadings, extensive oral , and broad pre-trial discovery processes. County courts, handling lower-value claims, followed the County Court Rules 1981 (CCR), which mirrored many RSC elements but with procedural variations suited to less complex disputes. This dual system lacked unified standards, resulting in inconsistencies between courts and encouraging tactical maneuvers that prolonged proceedings. A hallmark of the pre-CPR era was the emphasis on discovery, allowing parties unrestricted access to documents and , often leading to protracted disputes over relevance and privilege—known as "satellite litigation"—that independently generated substantial costs. applications were typically resolved through oral hearings rather than written submissions, further inflating expenses and timelines. Absent structured pre-action exchange of or protocols, cases frequently commenced with incomplete disclosure, fostering ambush tactics and settlement pressures based on uncertainty rather than merits. Costs recovery followed party-and-party or solicitor-and-client bases, but predictability was low, with courts exercising broad that rewarded aggressive litigation strategies. Lord Woolf's Access to Justice Final Report (1996) encapsulated the systemic failings, describing the civil justice process as "too expensive, too slow, and too complex," with these interconnected issues systematically advantaging resource-rich litigants while deterring or denying access for others. Delays were endemic, as passive judicial roles permitted cases to languish without enforced timelines, and complexity arose from archaic, voluminous rules that demanded specialist legal expertise. Empirical observations in the report highlighted how these dynamics resulted in many meritorious claims being abandoned due to unaffordability, while disproportionate costs—often exceeding claim values in modest disputes—exacerbated inequality, undermining the system's capacity to deliver timely resolution based on substantive .

Woolf Reforms and Their Rationale

In 1994, Lord Woolf was commissioned by the to review the rules and procedures governing civil courts in , culminating in an Interim Report published in June 1995 and a Final Report titled Access to Justice in July 1996. These documents diagnosed the civil as plagued by core defects: excessive procedural , chronic delays from flouted rules and ignored timetables, and disproportionately high costs that often exceeded the value of disputed claims. The adversarial framework exacerbated these issues by incentivizing tactical litigation over resolution, resulting in unequal treatment of parties, unpredictability, and a fragmented process that deterred access for smaller claims and non-expert litigants. The primary rationale for the reforms was to rectify these failures by fostering a more efficient, proportionate, and accessible system that prioritized substantive over procedural . Lord Woolf argued that the prevailing system's inefficiencies—such as lack of judicial control and over-reliance on party-driven advocacy—created barriers to , particularly for individuals and small businesses unable to sustain prolonged, costly battles. By shifting toward judicial oversight and cooperative practices, the reforms sought to reduce litigation's adversarial intensity, encourage pre-court settlements via protocols, and integrate to minimize court burdens. Central objectives included simplifying and unifying rules across the and county courts, modernizing archaic terminology, and imposing fixed timetables to curb delays while ensuring outcomes remained fair and enforceable. Proportionality emerged as a foundational principle, mandating that procedural efforts align with the claim's scale, complexity, and stakes to prevent the system from becoming self-defeating. This approach aimed not merely to accelerate processes but to realign with its causal purpose: resolving genuine disputes without engendering undue expense or inequity.

Enactment and Initial Implementation (1999)

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 were promulgated on 10 December 1998 by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee under powers conferred by sections 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997. Laid before on 17 December 1998, the rules entered into force on 26 April 1999, applying to all civil proceedings commenced thereafter in the and of . This enactment unified and replaced the disparate Rules of the 1965 and County Court Rules 1981, introducing a single procedural code designed to streamline litigation through standardized practices across jurisdictions. Initial implementation involved coordinated efforts to familiarize practitioners and judiciary with the CPR's innovations, including mandatory pre-action protocols and a shift toward judicially directed case management. The Lord Chancellor's Department, in collaboration with the , rolled out training initiatives and guidance materials prior to the commencement date to mitigate disruption, emphasizing compliance with the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and proportionately. Courts began applying the rules to new claims immediately, with early directions orders focusing on track allocation and timetables to expedite resolution. Teething issues arose in the first months, particularly around strict adherence to new requirements like statements of truth verifying pleadings and the risk of automatic for non-compliance with time limits. Practitioners reported challenges in adapting to proactive judicial involvement and cooperative disclosure obligations, which contrasted with prior adversarial norms, though these were addressed through iterative practice directions and appellate clarification. By late 1999, initial data indicated reduced average case durations in certain tracks, validating the reforms' intent despite transitional friction.

Post-Implementation Amendments and Evolutions

The Civil Procedure Rules have undergone periodic amendments through statutory instruments issued by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, often in response to judicial reviews, practical challenges in implementation, and evolving litigation needs such as controlling costs and enhancing efficiency. Early post-1999 updates primarily addressed technical errors and initial operational gaps, as seen in the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2000, which refined provisions from the original 1998 framework without altering core principles. Subsequent revisions built on evaluations of the rules' effectiveness, with the noting persistent issues like disproportionate costs despite the overriding objective. A pivotal evolution occurred with the Jackson reforms, stemming from Lord Justice Jackson's 2010 review of civil litigation costs, which identified ongoing failures in achieving proportionality post-1999 implementation. These changes, effective from 1 April 2013 via the , introduced mandatory costs budgeting under CPR Part 3 to cap recoverable costs in most cases, qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) in claims to protect claimants from adverse costs orders while preserving incentives for defendants, and enhanced Part 36 offers to encourage settlement. The reforms aimed to reduce the "costs tail wagging the litigation dog," though empirical data from early assessments showed mixed results, with costs management adding pre-trial burdens but curbing escalations in fast-track cases. Further refinements addressed disclosure practices, long criticized as outdated under CPR Part 31, leading to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme (PD 51U) launched on 1 January 2019 in the Business and Property Courts to promote technology-assisted review and category-based disclosure models over standard searches. This pilot, extended and revised in 2021, emphasized proportionality by requiring parties to justify disclosure categories and limiting adverse document searches, responding to perceptions of over-disclosure driving up electronic data costs. In 2022, the scheme was made permanent as PD 57AD, incorporating lessons from its trial phase, such as mandatory initial disclosures within 60 days of case management. Ongoing updates continue to adapt to digital and procedural shifts, including the Civil Procedure (Amendment ) Rules 2024, effective 1 October 2024, which added CPR Part 68 to streamline references to the Competition Appeal Tribunal and other specialized processes. These evolutions reflect iterative judicial oversight, with annual practice direction supplements ensuring responsiveness to and stakeholder feedback, though critics argue that layered amendments have increased without fully resolving baseline inefficiencies.

Foundational Principles

The Overriding Objective

The overriding objective, as articulated in Part 1 of the (CPR), establishes that these rules constitute a procedural code designed to enable courts to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. This principle, introduced upon the CPR's commencement on 26 April 1999, guides the interpretation and application of all subsequent rules, ensuring procedural decisions prioritize fairness, efficiency, and resource allocation over rigid formalism. Courts must actively apply the objective when exercising powers, including by interpreting rules in a manner that furthers it and considering factors such as case complexity, financial value, and parties' resources. Dealing with cases "justly," as specified in CPR 1.1(2), encompasses multiple elements: placing parties on an equal footing; saving expense; ensuring proceedings are proportionate to the case's nature, importance, and monetary amount involved; expeditious handling without excessive cost; efficient court resource use; and enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions, and orders. Parties bear a corresponding duty under CPR 1.3 to assist the court in furthering this objective, which influences conduct in disclosure, case management, and settlement efforts. Originating from Lord Woolf's 1996 Access to Justice Final Report, the objective addressed pre-CPR issues like excessive costs, delays, and adversarial excesses by shifting toward cooperative litigation and judicial oversight. Amendments have refined the objective over time; for instance, the 2013 Jackson reforms added "and at proportionate cost" to CPR 1.1(1), emphasizing cost control amid rising litigation expenses. Further updates effective 1 October 2024 incorporated promotion of (ADR) into the objective, requiring courts to consider its use where appropriate to resolve disputes efficiently and reduce judicial burden. This evolution reflects ongoing efforts to balance justice with practicality, as evidenced in judicial interpretations that sanction non-compliance, such as cost penalties for disproportionate conduct.

Proportionality in Litigation

Proportionality requires that the resources devoted to litigation, including time, costs, and procedural steps, align with the case's financial stakes, complexity, importance, and parties' financial positions. This principle forms a core component of the Civil Procedure Rules' (CPR) overriding objective, which mandates enabling courts to handle cases "justly and at proportionate cost." Under CPR 1.1(2)(c), just and proportionate dealing involves approaches scaled to the amount of money at issue, the case's significance (such as public interest or precedent value), the intricacy of factual and legal disputes, and each party's ability to bear expenses. The principle permeates various litigation stages, influencing disclosure obligations, expert evidence, and hearings. For instance, standard disclosure under CPR Part 24 must be proportionate, limiting searches to documents central to issues rather than exhaustive trawls that escalate costs disproportionately. Courts exercise active under CPR Part 3 to enforce proportionality, such as by approving budgeted costs via costs orders (CPR 3.12–3.20) that cap recoverable sums unless justified. In costs assessments post-Jackson Reforms (effective April 1, 2013), CPR 44.3(5) introduces a two-stage test: first, checking if incurred costs exceed what is reasonable and proportionate; second, if so, reducing to a proportionate figure considering the factors in CPR 1.1. This shift addressed pre-reform critiques where high costs deterred meritorious claims, particularly in lower-value disputes. Judicial application underscores proportionality's role in curbing excess. In Malksten v Bohinc EWHC 2236 (QB), the first applied the CPR 44.3(5) test, slashing claimed costs from £145,000 to £25,000 in a £75,000 dispute, deeming extensive solicitor work and involvement disproportionate to the sum involved and issues' simplicity. Similarly, Barts Health NHS Trust v Salmon EWHC 1903 (QB) affirmed that even successful parties face reductions if overall costs breach proportionality thresholds, emphasizing substance over procedural compliance alone. These rulings, alongside CPR amendments, reflect ongoing judicial commitment to cost control, though challenges persist in complex commercial litigation where high stakes justify greater expenditure. Breaches can trigger sanctions, including adverse costs orders or struck-out applications, reinforcing parties' duty to litigate proportionately from outset.

Active Case Management

Active case management requires the , under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) rule 1.4(1), to further the overriding objective by taking proactive steps to ensure cases are handled justly and efficiently. This duty emphasizes judicial intervention to control proceedings, contrasting with the pre-1999 system's reliance on parties to drive the litigation without significant court oversight. Rule 1.4(2) delineates the scope of active management, mandating actions such as:
  • Encouraging parties to cooperate in conducting proceedings.
  • Identifying key issues early to focus resources.
  • Promptly deciding which issues require full trial and summarily disposing of others where possible.
  • Determining the sequence for resolving issues.
  • Encouraging and, since amendments effective 1 October 2024, ordering the use of (ADR) if suitable, while facilitating its implementation.
  • Assisting parties in settling all or part of the dispute.
  • Regulating case pace by pinpointing critical steps and enforcing deadlines for compliance.
  • Overseeing adherence to directions, including through review hearings or demands for explanations or of compliance.
  • Leveraging to streamline processes.
  • Issuing directions to expedite and optimize trial proceedings.
These measures aim to minimize delays, reduce costs, and promote resolution without undue judicial resources, with courts empowered under CPR Part 3 to impose sanctions for failures in cooperation or compliance that undermine this framework. The 2024 ADR enhancements, informed by judicial precedents like Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council EWCA Civ 1416, affirm the court's authority to mandate non-court dispute resolution, provided it does not impair fair access to justice. In practice, active management manifests at case management conferences, where judges tailor directions to case specifics, such as track allocation and disclosure orders, ensuring proportionality to claim value, complexity, and parties' financial positions.

Case Allocation and Management Tracks

Allocation to Tracks

Allocation of cases to tracks under the Civil Procedure Rules occurs after the files a defence or acknowledgement of service, marking the preliminary stage of case management. The court serves a notice of proposed allocation along with directions questionnaires (Form N150) on the parties, requiring completion and return within 14 days for potential small claims track cases or 28 days otherwise. These questionnaires elicit details on the claim's value, complexity, estimated trial length, proposed directions, and suitability for settlement or . The court may dispense with questionnaires in straightforward cases or order an allocation hearing if further information is needed; failure to file a questionnaire without good reason can lead to default judgments, strikes out, or adverse costs orders. Allocation is typically decided by a district judge, who considers the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. The assesses allocation based on multiple factors outlined in CPR 26.8 and 26.13, including the financial value of the claim (disregarding interest, costs, and undisputed sums), the remedy sought, of facts or , number of parties and witnesses, extent of oral required, importance of the claim for the parties or non-parties, parties' views, and any other relevant circumstances such as vulnerability of parties. Value is determined by aggregating all money claims but excluding non-monetary remedies unless they significantly affect value; for aggregated claims, the highest-value claim sets the track unless unfair. Parties cannot contract out of track allocation, though they may propose directions; the serves of allocation to all parties, potentially with reasons if requested. Claims are normally allocated to the small claims track if valued at £10,000 or less, except for claims (where general must not exceed £5,000 for road traffic accidents or £1,500 otherwise, with total value not over £10,000) or disrepair claims (repair costs or not over £1,000 each). The court may allocate higher-value claims to this track if proportionate and suitable, but excludes claims involving , unlawful , or discrimination. The fast track applies to claims valued over £10,000 but not exceeding £25,000 that are straightforward, expected to last no longer than one day at trial, and limited to one per party in no more than two expert fields. The intermediate track, introduced via amendments effective from 1 October 2023 to extend fixed recoverable costs, caters to claims valued between £10,001 and £25,000 (or up to £100,000 in limited scopes) that exceed fast track simplicity but do not require multi-track management, such as certain employers' liability or claims. Upon allocation to the fast or intermediate track, the assigns a complexity band (1 to 4), influencing costs and directions, with band 4 reserved for the most demanding cases within these tracks. Road traffic accident claims for children or protected parties occurring on or after 31 May 2021 are mandatorily fast track, bypassing intermediate. All other claims, including those exceeding £100,000, involving complex issues (e.g., , clinical above thresholds), multiple parties, or requiring extensive or trial over three days, default to the multi-track for tailored, active judicial . Reallocation to a different track is permitted before trial if exceptional circumstances justify it, such as significant new or value changes, but requires permission and may involve costs consequences. These provisions aim to streamline proceedings by matching procedural intensity to case demands, promoting efficiency since the CPR's 1999 implementation.

Small Claims Track Procedures

The small claims track under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provides a streamlined, informal process for resolving allocated claims, emphasizing accessibility for unrepresented parties and minimizing costs and complexity. Upon allocation by the pursuant to CPR Part 26, the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost guides all stages, with many formal CPR provisions disapplied, including those on disclosure (Part 31, except basic duties), evidence (Part 32, except rule 32.1), and experts (Part 35, except limited permissions). The track applies to claims generally valued at no more than £10,000, with tailored limits for (£1,500 or less in non-road traffic cases; £5,000 or less in road traffic accidents excluding certain protected parties) and housing disrepair (£1,000 or less for repairs or damages), excluding builder's disputes, , or unlawful eviction claims. Following allocation, the court serves and issues directions via Form N180 directions responses, setting a hearing date with at least 21 days' (extendable by agreement or order). Standard directions (per Practice Direction 27A Appendix B) require parties to exchange key documents—like contracts, correspondence, or photos—and file witness statements or summaries 14 days before hearing; special directions (Appendix C) address case-specific needs, such as preliminary case management hearings under CPR 27.6. Limited disclosure suffices, focusing only on relied-upon documents, with no automatic right to standard disclosure. Expert evidence necessitates prior court permission, typically limited to one joint expert per issue, with fees capped at £750 (recoverable only if permitted). Hearings occur informally, often in the judge's room rather than open , without technical rules of ; parties present their case orally, witnesses testify unsworn unless ordered, and the judge directs questioning to clarify facts efficiently, potentially restricting by time, subject, or sequence. The judge explains proceedings, assists unrepresented parties on procedure (not substance), and delivers brief oral or written reasons for decisions. Disposal without full hearing is possible by or if uncontested; in absentia proceedings may occur after 7 days' notice, with strikes for non-attendance. Settlement offers under CPR Part 36 are disapplied, but rejections may factor into costs if deemed unreasonable. Costs are strictly limited to fixed recoverable amounts: court fees, reasonable and loss of (£95 per day maximum, plus care or assistance costs), and up to £260 for legal advice in or claims. Unreasonable conduct (e.g., failing to settle viable claims or comply with directions) may warrant additional awards, but costs and routine legal fees remain irrecoverable to deter litigation. Enforcement follows general CPR rules, with appeals lying to the or on permission, using Form N164.

Fast Track Procedures

The Fast Track procedures under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) apply to cases allocated pursuant to CPR Part 26, emphasizing efficiency and proportionality for straightforward claims unlikely to require more than one day at or extensive . Upon allocation, the must actively manage the case by issuing directions that establish a timetable for steps leading to , potentially including a case management conference to address any preliminary issues. These directions encourage and limit procedural steps to those necessary, aligning with the overriding objective in CPR Part 1. Standard directions, often issued at the allocation stage or following pre-action conduct review, outline key milestones to ensure progression within 30 weeks from allocation. Disclosure is typically directed under CPR Part 31 on a , requiring parties to conduct a reasonable search and exchange lists or documents within four weeks of the allocation order. statements must be exchanged simultaneously within ten weeks, serving as the primary means of adducing factual , with oral at confined to unless the court orders otherwise. Expert evidence is restricted; a single joint expert is preferred, with reports exchanged within fourteen weeks if permitted, and any discussion between experts required to narrow issues. Pre-trial checklists (Form N170) must be filed eight weeks before , confirming compliance with directions, trial readiness, and estimated length, with non-compliance risking or adverse costs orders. The court fixes the trial date or a window not exceeding three weeks upon receipt of checklists, ensuring the hearing occurs no later than 30 weeks post-allocation. Trials are conducted in accordance with prior directions, limited to one day, with the trial advocate required to attend any pre-trial review and possess authority to deal with the case fully. No automatic entitlement exists to oral opening or closing submissions unless justified, and the judge may limit evidence to prevent undue elaboration. Costs recovery in Fast Track cases follows the fixed recoverable costs regime under CPR Part 45 Sections VI and IX, applicable since 1 October 2023 to promote predictability and curb disproportionate litigation expenses. These costs are banded by complexity (assigned under CPR 26.14) and stage of proceedings, with grid rates applying regardless of actual costs incurred, subject to exceptions for conduct or public funding.

Multi-Track Procedures

The multi-track serves as the default procedural route under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) for claims not allocated to the small claims or fast track, typically encompassing those exceeding £100,000 in value, involving intricate factual or legal issues, multiple parties, or substantial expert evidence. Allocation to this track occurs following submission of directions questionnaires under CPR 26.3, with the court considering factors such as claim complexity, required oral evidence, and estimated hearing length to ensure proportionality and efficiency. Procedures are governed by CPR Part 29, which applies exclusively to multi-track cases and prioritizes active judicial oversight to adapt processes to the litigation's demands. Central to multi-track management is the court's authority under CPR 29.2 to issue tailored directions, establish timetables, fix trial dates or periods, and mandate consideration of (ADR) at appropriate stages. A case conference (CMC), convened pursuant to CPR 29.3 at any point after allocation, reviews case progress, compliance with initial directions, and disclosure obligations; it addresses preliminary issues, witness and evidence, and further scheduling, with legal representatives required to attend possessing full settlement authority or risk adverse costs orders. Parties must jointly propose directions for approval seven days prior to the CMC under CPR 29.4, promoting cooperation while allowing the court to dispense with a hearing if proposals align with the overriding objective. The Practice Direction to Part 29 underscores hallmarks of flexibility and customization, enabling directions for split trials, phased disclosure (standard, limited, or menu-based under CPR 31), and protocols that favor single joint experts unless multi-party dynamics or technical necessity justify otherwise, with court permission mandatory for any involvement per CPR 35. Timetables set during or after the CMC are binding, with variations permitted only via court application under CPR 29.5, prohibiting unilateral party agreements on key milestones like dates to maintain control and prevent delays. Pre-trial preparation culminates in the listing questionnaire (formerly pre-trial checklist) under CPR 29.6, filed jointly by parties within 14 days of court notification to confirm readiness, including updates on reports, statements, and settlement prospects; failure to comply may trigger or costs penalties. A pre-trial review (PTR) may follow under CPR 29.7 if checklists reveal unresolved issues, with parties notified at least seven days in advance to finalize bundles, trial estimates, and any outstanding directions. Post-review, the court establishes a timetable under CPR 29.8, confirming the date or window, after which the trial proceeds per prior orders unless the trial judge directs modifications under CPR 29.9 for unforeseen circumstances. Costs management, where applicable (e.g., claims under £10 million per CPR Practice Direction 51U), involves budgeting and precedes substantive hearings to enforce proportionality. Non-compliance across stages invites sanctions, including adverse costs or summary assessments post-trial under CPR 44.6.

Pre-Action Requirements

Objectives of Pre-Action Protocols

The objectives of pre-action protocols under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in are to foster early and effective by mandating structured and negotiation before litigation commences. As detailed in the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PDPAC), parties are expected to share sufficient details to achieve key aims: understanding each other's positions on the dispute; making informed decisions on whether to proceed to court; attempting settlement without formal proceedings; evaluating (ADR) options to aid resolution; enabling efficient management of any subsequent litigation; and minimizing the overall costs of . These aims directly support the CPR's overriding objective of enabling courts to handle cases justly and at proportionate cost, as amended effective 1 October 2024 to emphasize pre-action compliance in promoting access to justice. In practice, these objectives encourage claimants to provide a clear letter of claim outlining the dispute's basis, remedy sought, and supporting , prompting defendants to respond promptly with admissions, denials, or counter-offers. For instance, protocols applicable to specific claims, such as or construction disputes, adapt these goals to sector-specific needs, like early disclosure to narrow issues, thereby reducing length and expense if proceedings advance. Compliance is assessed against reasonableness, with the court considering factors like the protocol's applicability and parties' conduct in light of these objectives when issuing costs orders or managing cases. By prioritizing empirical steps like timed responses—typically within 14-21 days for acknowledgments and fuller replies—the protocols aim to prevent "trial by ambush" and promote causal transparency in claims, aligning with first-principles evaluation of evidence strength pre-litigation. Recent reviews, such as the Civil Justice Council's 2023-2025 reports, have reinforced these objectives amid rising litigation costs, recommending explicit integration into the overriding objective to curb overuse of protocols in low-value claims while preserving their role in high-stakes disputes. Empirical data from protocol adherence shows varied success; for example, in claims under the Pre-Action Protocol for Claims (updated March 2024), early settlement rates exceed 90% in compliant cases, underscoring the protocols' effectiveness in averting court resources.

Key Existing Protocols

The Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols establishes the foundational framework for pre-litigation behavior in civil claims under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), applicable where no specific protocol governs, emphasizing the exchange of key information, proportionality in costs, and attempts at settlement or before issuing proceedings. Its objectives include enabling parties to understand each other's positions, avoid unnecessary litigation, and facilitate efficient court management if proceedings commence, with non-compliance potentially resulting in adverse costs orders or other sanctions. Specific pre-action protocols supplement this direction for defined dispute types, mandating tailored steps such as detailed letter-before-claim requirements, standard disclosure lists, and timelines for responses, all aimed at narrowing issues and promoting resolution without court involvement. As of 2021, there are approximately 16 such protocols, each approved by the and periodically updated to reflect procedural reforms. Key protocols include:
  • Pre-action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims: Applies to most litigation (excluding clinical negligence), requiring claimants to provide a letter of claim with incident details, injuries, and ; defendants must acknowledge within 21 days and disclose details, with full responses due within three months; medical evidence exchange is mandatory early to assess quantum. Effective 6 April 2015.
  • Pre-action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes: Tailored for medical negligence claims, it mandates a detailed letter of claim including alleged breaches and causation links, supported by an medical report; defendants respond within three months on admission or denial, with further schedules for statements and additional advice to minimize expert proliferation.
  • Pre-action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes: Covers disputes arising from building contracts or works, requiring a detailed claim letter with contractual basis, key documents, and outlines; parties must meet for agenda-setting and consider or , with a 28-day response deadline and emphasis on concurrent evidence to control costs. Effective 9 November 2016.
  • Pre-action Protocol for Professional Negligence: Applies to claims against professionals (e.g., solicitors, accountants), necessitating a comprehensive letter of claim specifying alleged negligence, loss quantification, and preliminary expert views; responses within one month for admission or three months for denial, followed by disclosure of relevant categories and a stocktake meeting to explore settlement.
  • Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims: Introduced in 2017 for undisputed monetary debts, it requires creditors to send a letter of claim with debt details, repayment proposals, and financial statements if requested; debtors have 30 days to respond, with provisions for time to pay and escalation only after failed negotiation, aiming to reduce low-value claims entering the court system.
These protocols enforce structured communication to foster early resolution, with courts assessing compliance based on the claim's complexity and value when proceedings begin.

Sanctions for Non-Compliance

The (CPR) empower courts to impose sanctions for failure to comply with pre-action protocols or the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, aiming to enforce the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Courts expect substantial compliance and consider non-compliance as a factor in case management decisions under CPR 3.1(4), including when issuing directions or assessing costs under CPR 44.3(5)(a). Non-compliance may arise from providing insufficient information, breaching time limits, or unreasonably refusing (ADR). The evaluates the effect of such failures, particularly whether they led to unnecessary litigation or wasted costs, and reserves sanctions for substantial rather than trivial or technical breaches. It may relieve a from protocol obligations, stay proceedings until compliance, or proceed with sanctions tailored to the breach's severity. Available sanctions include adverse costs orders, potentially on an indemnity basis rather than , to reflect unreasonable conduct. For claimants, courts may limit or deny on ; for defendants, they may award at up to 10% above the base rate from the non-compliance date. Under CPR 3.4(2)(c), a statement of case may be struck out entirely for protocol breaches, with possible stays on refiling until costs are paid. These measures deter evasion of pre-action steps designed to promote early settlement and narrow issues.

Handling Cases Without Applicable Protocols

In cases where no specific pre-action protocol approved by the applies, the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols governs the parties' conduct, serving as a default framework to facilitate early information exchange and . This direction, incorporated into the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under Part 1's overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost, mandates reasonable and proportionate steps prior to issuing proceedings. The primary objectives include enabling parties to understand each other's positions, assess settlement prospects, explore , and support efficient case management if litigation proceeds, all while minimizing costs. Annex A of the Practice Direction provides detailed guidance on a standard pre-action procedure, which courts generally expect parties to follow unless circumstances justify deviation. The claimant must commence by sending a letter before claim containing a concise summary of the facts, the basis of the claim, and remedies sought—such as a quantified sum in or cases, including how the amount was calculated. The defendant is required to acknowledge receipt within 14 days and provide a full response within 14 days for straightforward matters or up to three months for more complex ones, stating whether the claim is accepted, disputed (with reasons), or subject to a . Parties should also disclose sufficient key documents to clarify disputed issues, though full disclosure is not mandated at this stage. Throughout, parties must consider ADR options, such as , and document any refusals, as unreasonable rejection may influence subsequent cost awards. This process does not alter statutory limitation periods, preserving the claimant's right to issue proceedings if necessary. Compliance promotes the CPR's emphasis on proportionality, with deviations assessed by courts based on case-specific factors.

Core Procedural Rules

Service of Documents and Claim Forms

Service of the claim form under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is governed by Part 6 and serves to notify the of the proceedings, establishing the 's upon valid service. The typically effects service unless the claimant notifies the in writing that they intend to do so or a rule, practice direction, or provides otherwise; in such cases, the claimant must provide copies of the claim form for each . Personal service involves leaving the with the individual , a director or for companies, or a partner or manager for partnerships. Permitted methods for serving the claim form within the include personal service under rule 6.5, first class post or leaving the document at the permitted address under rule 6.3(1)(b) and (c), document exchange under rule 6.3(1)(d), or any other method authorised by the court under rule 6.15. The address for service must be within the and, where applicable, include a postcode or equivalent; it may be the defendant's usual or last known residence, place of business, or principal office if no solicitor's address is provided. Service on solicitors is valid at their business address if authorised, and contractual provisions may specify methods if they align with CPR requirements. For children or protected parties, service is on a with parental responsibility or the litigation friend. Deemed dates of service for the claim form are calculated as the second following the date of posting, personal delivery, or leaving at the address, excluding non-business days. The court may dispense with service in exceptional circumstances under rule 6.16 or order alternative service under rule 6.15, specifying the method and deemed date, upon evidence that standard methods are impracticable. Proof of service requires a certificate filed within 7 days (formerly 21 days prior to certain amendments), detailing the method and date. Service out of the jurisdiction may proceed without permission in cases under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 or the 2005 Hague Convention, or with court permission under rule 6.36 where grounds in Practice Direction 6B are met, such as claims falling within specified gateways like contracts or torts committed in . Service of other documents, distinct from the claim form, follows similar methods under rules 6.19 to 6.26 but is primarily the responsibility of the party required to serve, unless the court directs otherwise. Methods include personal service, first class post, document exchange, (if agreed), or electronic means where the recipient has indicated willingness or it is required by practice direction. An address for service must be provided upon filing, typically the solicitor's business address or the party's address with postcode; failure to provide one may lead to restrictions on actions like . Deemed service for non-claim documents occurs on the second after posting or delivery for post and personal methods, or immediately for leaving documents or DX if on a before 5 p.m., with adjustments for later times or non-business days. Electronic service is deemed on the second after sending if no electronic receipt is generated, promoting efficiency but requiring verification of transmission.

Pleadings and Amendments

Statements of case, the formal term for pleadings under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in , include the claim form, particulars of claim, defence, and reply to defence where applicable. These documents define the issues in dispute by setting out the claimant's case and the defendant's response, providing sufficient detail to give fair to the parties and the while promoting the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and proportionately. CPR Part 16 governs their content and form, requiring conciseness to avoid prolixity and focus on material facts rather than evidence or argument. The claim form under CPR 16.2 must contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim and the remedy sought, such as or . For money claims, it includes a statement of value per CPR 16.3, specifying the amount claimed or a range (e.g., £10,000 to £25,000) unless the claim is not quantifiable or exceeds £25,000. In claims, the statement distinguishes general damages below or above £1,500 (or £5,000 for road traffic accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2021). If particulars of claim are served separately, the claim form must indicate this; otherwise, they may be included within it. Particulars of claim, per CPR 16.4, must state concisely the facts relied upon, excluding , and include details of any claimed (basis, rate, period from/to, and amount due). For aggravated, exemplary, or provisional damages, the grounds must be specified. Practice Direction 16 imposes additional requirements for certain claims, such as (detailing injuries, , and financial losses) or fatal accidents (including dependency details). All statements of case require a statement of truth verifying accuracy, with false statements risking proceedings. A defence under CPR 16.5 must address every allegation in the particulars of claim, stating which are admitted, denied (with reasons and any alternative facts), or not admitted (requiring proof). Non-admissions do not imply denial, but evasive responses may lead to adverse inferences or . If disputing the claimant's value statement, the must explain and provide an alternative estimate if practicable. Set-off or counterclaims may be included per CPR 16.6, treated as part of the defence. A reply to defence is not mandatory but, if filed under CPR 16.7, must similarly address denials; failure to reply deems certain matters admitted only if specified. The court may dispense with further statements or proceed without them under CPR 16.8 if the claim form suffices to identify issues. Amendments to statements of case are governed by CPR Part 17, allowing flexibility to correct errors or refine cases while preventing or . Before service, a may amend freely without permission. After service, amendments require written consent from all parties or court permission via application notice. Adding, substituting, or removing parties invokes CPR Part 19 procedures, and all amendments need a fresh statement of truth unless dispensed with. Permission applications under CPR 17.3 must include the proposed amended document, typically marked to show changes, with the Practice Direction requiring prompt filing and service. The court grants permission at its discretion, considering factors like delay, prejudice, and overriding objective, and may impose conditions or direct consequential amendments. Unauthorized post-service amendments may be disallowed on application within 14 days of service per CPR 17.2. Post-limitation period amendments introducing new claims are restricted by CPR 17.4 to prevent circumventing statutes like the Limitation Act 1980. They are allowable if arising from the same or substantially similar facts as the original claim, correcting a genuine mistake in party identification, or reflecting a change in the party's capacity existing at proceedings' outset or acquired later. Courts interpret this narrowly to uphold limitation principles, as affirmed in cases emphasizing no retrospective validation of time-barred claims without statutory basis.

Disclosure Obligations

Disclosure obligations in civil proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are primarily regulated by Part 31, which applies to all claims except those allocated to the small claims track. These obligations require parties to identify and state the existence of relevant documents, promoting transparency while balancing proportionality to avoid undue cost or burden. The duty extends only to documents within a party's control, defined as those a party has or has had a right to possession, custody, or power to dispose. A party's disclosure obligation is triggered by the start of proceedings and constitutes a continuing until the conclusion of the case. Under this ongoing requirement, if additional documents meeting the disclosure criteria come to light after initial lists are served, the party must immediately notify every other party. Failure to comply can result in sanctions, including adverse inferences or costs orders, as the duty underscores the 's overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Standard disclosure, the default model unless otherwise ordered, mandates a reasonable search to identify documents falling into specific categories: (1) those on which the party relies; (2) those that may adversely affect the disclosing party's own case or another party's case, or that support another party's case; (3) those required by any practice direction supplementing Part 31; and (4) those ordered by the . The definition of "" is expansive, encompassing anything in which of any description is recorded, including electronic records such as emails, databases, metadata, and deleted files. In multi-track or intermediate-track claims (excluding claims under £25,000), parties must prepare a disclosure report at least 14 days before the first case management , outlining known document sources, preservation measures, and estimated costs to inform the 's directions on scope. The reasonableness of a search is assessed based on factors including the number of documents involved, the nature and complexity of the proceedings, the ease and expense of retrieval, and the likelihood that documents will have a significant impact on issues in dispute. Proportionality is central, allowing parties to limit searches to specific categories, locations, or date ranges where broader efforts would be disproportionate; any such limitations must be justified in the disclosure statement. Parties are required to discuss and seek to agree on disclosure proposals at least seven days before the case management conference, with the court empowered to order tailored alternatives, such as no disclosure, field-based disclosure, or specific disclosure of categories relevant to particular issues. The procedural mechanism for standard disclosure involves serving a list of documents in Form N265, which must specify documents concisely by category or class, indicate those withheld (e.g., on grounds of privilege) or no longer in control, and be verified by a disclosure statement. The statement, signed by the party or their legal representative, confirms that a reasonable and proportionate search has been conducted and that disclosure obligations have been complied with to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief. Other parties then have a right to inspect disclosed documents unless inspection is withheld on valid grounds, such as lack of control or disproportionality for an entire category. In the Business and Property Courts, Practice Direction 57AD (effective from 1 October 2022) supplements these rules with a structured regime, including models for extended disclosure and provisions for less complex claims, emphasizing initial document control sheets and disclosure guidance hearings to refine obligations early.

Interim Applications and Hearings

Interim applications under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) enable parties to seek court orders or directions prior to the trial or final determination of a claim, addressing procedural matters, interim remedies, or urgent issues. These applications are governed by CPR Part 23, which establishes general rules applicable across civil proceedings in . They promote efficient case management by allowing courts to resolve discrete issues without delaying the main action. The procedure requires filing an application notice, typically using Form N244, which must specify the order sought, the grounds for the application, and any supporting evidence. The notice includes a statement of truth verifying its contents and is filed at the court or County Court hearing centre handling the claim, unless the case has been transferred or a trial date fixed. Evidence in support is provided through a witness statement or affidavit, served alongside the notice where necessary, with respondents required to file responsive evidence promptly as directed. Applications should be timed to align with existing hearings where possible to avoid unnecessary costs. Applications are classified as either with or without . For those with , the application must be served on each respondent as soon as practicable and no less than three clear days before the hearing date, enabling respondents to prepare and attend. Without applications, permitted only in cases of exceptional urgency, , or court permission, do not require prior service but impose a duty on the applicant to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts; the resulting order must be served on affected parties promptly, who may then apply to set it aside or vary it within seven days. Hearings for interim applications may be conducted orally or determined without a hearing if the parties agree or the court deems it inappropriate for an oral hearing, such as for straightforward matters. Where an oral hearing occurs, parties must file bundles of documents, skeleton arguments (mandatory in multi-track cases), and case summaries by 4:00 p.m. two days prior, unless directed otherwise; hearings can be in-person, remote, or hybrid as arranged by the court. The court holds discretion to proceed in a party's absence and may adjourn or re-list if justice requires. Costs of the application are typically assessed summarily at the hearing, with the unsuccessful party ordered to pay unless the court directs otherwise, though recovery is discretionary and follows principles in CPR Part 44.

Promotion of Settlement and ADR

Role of Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) encompasses methods such as , early neutral evaluation, and that enable parties to resolve civil disputes without full court , serving a foundational role in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) by advancing the overriding objective of just and proportionate case disposal. Under CPR 1.4(2)(e), the court's active case duties explicitly include encouraging parties to use ADR procedures where appropriate and facilitating their implementation, such as by adjourning or staying proceedings to allow ADR processes to occur. This integration reflects empirical recognition that ADR reduces court burdens, with data from the indicating that mediated cases settle at rates exceeding 70% in certain small claims tracks, thereby conserving judicial resources and minimizing delays. At the pre-action stage, the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols mandates that parties consider ADR options seriously before initiating proceedings, with protocols for specific claim types—such as or disputes—requiring explicit proposals for ADR and disclosure of any prior attempts. Failure to engage meaningfully, including through silence in response to ADR invitations, may be deemed unreasonable by the , potentially influencing case management decisions or costs awards under CPR 44. This pre-litigation emphasis aligns with causal evidence from pilot schemes, where mandatory ADR in low-value debt claims since 2018 has diverted over 60% of cases from hearings, demonstrating ADR's efficacy in filtering meritorious claims early. During ongoing litigation, ADR's role extends through judicial oversight, where courts routinely direct parties to explore options at directions hearings or costs assessments, often staying actions to enable processes like . Unreasonable refusal to participate carries significant costs risks, as affirmed in Dunnett v Railtrack plc EWCA Civ 303, where the successful defendant was denied standard costs recovery due to its blanket rejection of court-suggested ADR despite the dispute's suitability. Similarly, Halsey v Milton Keynes General EWCA Civ 576 established non-exhaustive guidelines for assessing reasonableness, weighing factors like dispute nature, settlement prospects, ADR costs relative to litigation, and potential delay; parties unreasonably refusing without justification face costs or deprivation of costs, even if ultimately victorious. These precedents underscore ADR's coercive , with appellate courts applying them consistently to enforce compliance without direct compulsion prior to recent amendments.

Judicial Powers to Compel ADR

Under English , courts possess inherent to stay proceedings to facilitate (ADR), a power derived from their case management authority under CPR 3.1, which includes the ability to stay proceedings generally or for specific purposes. This allows judges to order parties to participate in ADR processes, such as , provided such orders do not impair the parties' or effective access to under Article 6 of the . Limitations on compulsion emphasize proportionality; orders must align with the overriding objective in CPR 1.1 to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, without forcing settlement but requiring good-faith engagement. The landmark case of Halsey v Milton Keynes General EWCA Civ 576 established guidelines cautioning against compelling unwilling parties to mediate, viewing it as a potential infringement on access rights, though could impose adverse costs consequences for unreasonable refusal. These obiter remarks influenced practice for nearly two decades, prioritizing voluntary participation while permitting stays only in exceptional circumstances. However, in Churchill v Council EWCA Civ 1416, the of Appeal clarified that Halsey's on compulsion was not binding precedent, affirming ' power to order ADR participation via stays, including non-traditional processes like internal complaints procedures, if proportionate and not prejudicing trial rights. This decision, delivered on 29 November 2023, shifted judicial discretion toward proactive enforcement, with the emphasizing evaluation of factors like dispute suitability, party willingness, costs, and delay risks. Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules effective 1 2024 codified and expanded these powers by revising the overriding objective in CPR 1.1 to explicitly promote ADR as a means of resolving disputes efficiently. Under the updated CPR 1.4(2)(e), active case management now mandates courts to consider ordering parties to engage in ADR when issuing directions, integrating compulsion into routine procedure rather than exceptional . Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct was similarly amended to require parties to outline ADR efforts or refusals, enabling courts to penalize non-engagement via costs sanctions under CPR 44.2. Refusal remains justifiable if evidenced as unreasonable, but the threshold has risen, with judges assessing objective factors like process efficacy and prejudice. These changes apply across civil claims in , excluding small claims track where pilot compulsory schemes operate separately, such as the 2024 county court initiative for money claims under £10,000. Empirical data post-Churchill indicates increased ADR uptake, though full impacts of the 2024 rules await longitudinal assessment.

2024 Amendments and Their Implications

The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2024 (SI 2024/839), effective from 1 October 2024, amended the overriding objective in CPR Part 1 to mandate that courts actively manage cases by considering parties' engagement with or potential benefits from alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation and negotiation, alongside active case management and proportionate resource allocation. These changes extend to CPR Parts 3, 28, and 29, requiring courts to explore ADR suitability during allocation, case management conferences, and directions orders for fast-track, intermediate-track, and multi-track claims, with explicit provisions for staying proceedings to facilitate ADR where appropriate and proportionate. The amendments codify the Court of Appeal's ruling in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council EWCA Civ 1416, which rejected prior constraints from Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust EWCA Civ 576 on compelling ADR, affirming that such orders do not inherently violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights if they avoid undue prejudice or delay. Additional updates in the same instrument include the introduction of CPR Part 68 to streamline collective redress mechanisms, such as group litigation orders for mass claims, and refinements to clinical protocols under CPR Part 35 for disclosure, aiming to curb escalating costs in such disputes. Earlier in the year, the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2024 (SI 2024/106), effective from 6 April 2024, made narrower adjustments, including extensions of fixed recoverable costs regimes to intermediate-track claims and clarifications on track allocation for specific claim types like clinical and public authority , without altering core ADR provisions. These technical refinements support broader efficiency goals but lack the transformative ADR emphasis of the October changes. The implications of the October 2024 amendments center on enhanced judicial leverage to divert cases from full , potentially alleviating court backlogs—evidenced by pre-amendment data showing over 60,000 outstanding claims in the at the end of 2023—and lowering litigation expenses, as voluntary ADR historically resolves 70-80% of mediated civil disputes at a fraction of costs. However, compulsion risks tactical non-engagement, where parties attend ADR perfunctorily to avoid sanctions under CPR 3.1(2)(m) for non-compliance, potentially prolonging proceedings; early post-implementation cases indicate courts imposing costs penalties for unreasonable ADR refusal, but without longitudinal data as of late 2025, the net impact on settlement rates remains observational rather than empirically proven. Critics, including practitioner analyses, argue that overriding party autonomy could undermine ADR's voluntary , which empirical studies attribute to higher success rates, while proponents highlight alignment with the CPR's foundational aim of just, expeditious resolution since 1999. Non-compliance sanctions, now explicitly tied to ADR refusal, may incentivize genuine participation but raise enforcement challenges in asymmetric disputes, such as those involving unrepresented litigants. Overall, these reforms signal a toward institutionalized ADR, with prospective reductions in volume contingent on judicial consistency and party incentives.

Impact and Empirical Assessment

Achievements in Efficiency and Cost Reduction

The introduction of pre-action protocols under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) has promoted early and , diverting many disputes from and thereby reducing caseloads and associated . Following the CPR's in 1999, county claims declined by 25% in the initial months, attributed to increased out-of-court settlements facilitated by these protocols. claims saw a modest increase, but the overall reduction in issued proceedings reflects a systemic shift toward resolution without full litigation. Active case management provisions empower judges to set timelines, limit disclosure, and streamline hearings, yielding measurable reductions in procedural delays for allocated tracks. Empirical reviews of the Woolf reforms underpinning the CPR indicate improvements in average time to disposition for fast-track cases, with standardized directions minimizing applications and unnecessary steps. Pre-action protocols have also elevated settlement rates, with studies documenting a cultural emphasis on proportionality that curtails protracted discovery and gathering. Cost control advancements include fixed recoverable costs regimes for low-value claims in the small claims and fast tracks, capping expenses to ensure proportionality, and the 2013 introduction of cost budgeting for multi-track cases, which requires court-approved budgets to constrain overspending. These measures, stemming from the 2009 Jackson Review's critique of disproportionate costs under early CPR iterations, have moderated recoverable legal fees in specified proceedings, preventing escalation in routine disputes despite broader litigation expense pressures.

Criticisms Regarding Access to Justice

Critics argue that the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), introduced in 1999 following the Woolf reforms, have failed to deliver affordable access to , primarily due to persistent high litigation costs that often exceed the value of disputed claims. For instance, in low-value disputes such as a £5,000 claim, total costs can reach £100,000 for the claimant, rendering court proceedings economically unviable for individuals and small businesses with claims under £25,000 to £100,000. Lord Justice Jackson, who led post-CPR cost reviews, acknowledged in 2018 that costs had not decreased as anticipated despite reforms like costs budgeting, attributing this to front-loaded expenses in case and disclosure, which require significant early investment without guaranteed recovery. The CPR's complexity, tailored for represented parties, disproportionately burdens litigants in person (LIPs), whose numbers have surged due to reductions and unaffordable representation—reaching 85% of defendants by 2011. Procedural requirements, such as detailed pre-action protocols and mandatory costs management conferences, overwhelm self-represented individuals unfamiliar with adversarial terminology like "fast track" or "multi-track," leading to procedural errors, delays, and unequal footing against resourced opponents. The Jackson reforms, intended to curb costs through fixed recoverable costs and proportionality rules, have been faulted for escalating satellite litigation over compliance, with no systematic empirical evaluation confirming reductions in overall expenses. Rising court fees since April 2014 further deter initiation of claims, compounding the "loser-pays" principle's risk, where adverse costs awards can bankrupt ordinary claimants unable to secure after-the-event insurance or funding. Empirical indicators include a lack of decline in disproportionate costs post-reform and increased reliance on or resources, signaling systemic barriers that prioritize efficiency for high-value disputes over equitable access for modest ones. Judicial reviews, such as the 2016 Briggs report, highlight how these elements contribute to civil being treated as a "" service, under-resourced relative to criminal and family jurisdictions, thus perpetuating exclusion for those without means.

Data on Litigation Outcomes and Delays

In the years following the implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in 1999, which emphasized active case management and pre-action protocols to address pre-existing delays, the proportion of civil claims proceeding to full declined sharply from approximately 3% in the mid-1990s to less than 1% by the early , reflecting a shift toward earlier resolutions via settlement or default judgments. This reduction aligned with the CPR's overriding objective under Rule 1.1 to dispose of cases justly and efficiently, though empirical analyses indicate mixed results on overall delay reduction, with some tracks experiencing faster disposals while complex cases persisted longer due to ongoing resource constraints. Recent data reveal persistent challenges in civil litigation timelines. For small claims track cases reaching in January to March 2025, the mean time from claim to hearing was 49.8 weeks, an improvement of 1.5 weeks compared to the same quarter in 2024, yet still indicative of substantial delays relative to the CPR's proportionality goals. Fast-track and multi-track claims showed similar patterns, with average times to hovering around 50-60 weeks in recent quarters, exacerbated by post-pandemic backlogs that increased outstanding civil cases by over 20% from 2019 levels in county courts. Litigation outcomes under the CPR favor pre-trial resolutions, with only about 20% of defended claims advancing to ; in January to March 2025, 67,000 claims were defended out of roughly 300,000 total county court filings, but just 14,000 reached , up 16% year-over-year amid rising caseloads. Claimant success rates at remain opaque in aggregate MoJ statistics, as most dispositions occur via undefended defaults (prevalent in money claims, comprising 85% of filings) or negotiated settlements encouraged by cost sanctions under CPR Part 36. In niche contexts, such as applications to set aside default judgments, claimants succeeded in 57.6% of cases in 2019, suggesting moderate recovery rates but highlighting variability by claim type. Overall, the low incidence underscores the CPR's in promoting efficiency, though critics note that incomplete outcome data limits assessments of substantive justice.

Governance and Terminology

Rule-Making Authority and Process

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are promulgated by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC), a statutory body established under section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to formulate rules governing civil proceedings in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, the High Court, and county courts in England and Wales. The CPR, which replaced the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 and County Court Rules 1981, were first enacted as the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 via statutory instrument. This authority derives from sections 1 and 2 of the 1997 Act, empowering the CPRC to create a unified procedural code aimed at enabling courts to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, while mandating rules that are simple and clearly expressed. The CPRC comprises the Head of Civil Justice (who chairs the committee), the Deputy Head of Civil Justice (if appointed), and other members including two or three judges of the Senior Courts, one Circuit judge, one or two district judges of the High Court or county courts, one judge with experience in Welsh devolution matters, one Master or Registrar (as defined in Schedule 2 to the Senior Courts Act 1981), three persons with rights of audience or conduct of litigation in the Senior Courts (with at least one experienced in county court proceedings), three persons authorized to conduct litigation in the Senior Courts (similarly experienced), and two persons with experience in consumer affairs or the provision of advice to the public. Judicial and practitioner members are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, while other members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor; the committee must include both judicial and non-judicial expertise to balance technical procedural knowledge with practical user perspectives. Rules or amendments are drafted following consultations with relevant stakeholders, such as legal practitioners and court users, often through public calls for comment lasting six weeks (excluding August). Proposed rules must be approved by at least eight committee members, signed accordingly, and submitted to the Lord Chancellor, who may approve them or disallow them with written reasons; approved rules are laid before Parliament as statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure, allowing either House to annul them within 40 days if deemed ultra vires or inappropriate. Amendments, issued periodically as Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules (e.g., the 2024 amendments effective 1 October 2024 introducing Part 68 for collective redress), typically enter into force on specified dates such as 6 April or 1 October to align with the legal year, ensuring phased implementation to minimize disruption. This process reflects an iterative approach, with the CPRC reviewing feedback, refining drafts, and seeking ratification by the Master of the Rolls before parliamentary scrutiny, thereby incorporating empirical insights from ongoing litigation trends while maintaining statutory oversight. The implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) on 26 April 1999 introduced a deliberate shift toward terminology in civil proceedings across , replacing numerous archaic expressions derived from prior regimes such as the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC) and County Court Rules (CCR). This reform, recommended in Lord Woolf's Access to Justice interim report (1995) and final report (1996), sought to demystify legal processes, reduce barriers for non-experts, and align language with modern usage by eliminating Latin phrases, technical jargon, and outdated terms that obscured procedural steps. Among the most prominent changes, ""—the traditional designation for the party initiating a claim under the RSC—was supplanted by "claimant," reflecting a broader emphasis on descriptive, functional over historical labels. Similarly, the "," a formal originating process often associated with actions, was reconceived as the "claim form," a streamlined intended to initiate proceedings more accessibly. "Pleadings," which encompassed formal written statements like the statement of claim or defence, evolved into "statements of case," encompassing particulars of claim, defence, and replies to promote clarity in delineating issues early. Further substitutions targeted evidentiary and cost-related processes: "discovery," the pre-trial obligation to disclose documents, became "disclosure," with standardized protocols to limit scope and encourage proportionality; "," formal written questions, were reframed as "requests for further information"; and "taxation" of costs shifted to "detailed assessment," aligning with a case management that prioritizes . Affidavits, sworn statements under , were largely replaced by " statements" in non-specified proceedings, favoring narrative flexibility over rigid formality unless court-ordered otherwise under CPR Part 32. These alterations extended to summonses, with " summons" supplanting older variants, and eliminated Latin maxims like or in favor of explanatory English phrasing where possible. The terminology overhaul was not merely cosmetic but integral to the CPR's overriding objective under rule 1.1, which mandates dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost, informed by active judicial management. While initial adoption streamlined communication—evidenced by the unified CPR glossary defining terms accessibly—critics noted potential loss of precision in abandoning time-tested phrases, though empirical adjustments via annual amendments have refined usage without reverting to pre-1999 norms. Subsequent updates, such as gender-neutral pronouns (e.g., "they" over "he") in practice directions from around 2020 onward, reflect ongoing evolution toward inclusivity without undermining the 1999 foundation.

References

  1. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part02
  2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/12/section/1
  3. https://www.mondaq.com/uk/civil-law/705694/lord-woolfs-reforms-and-civil-procedure-rules-1998
  4. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part01
  5. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil
  6. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/contents/made
  7. https://vlex.co.uk/vid/rules-of-the-supreme-812157913
  8. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=jleg
  9. https://www.gcbsa.co.za/law-journals/1996/november/1996-november-vol009-no2-pp108-115.pdf
  10. https://www.ijsj.ie/assets/uploads/documents/pdfs/2002-Edition-01/article/a-new-approach-to-civil-litigation-implementing-the-woolf-reforms-and-judicial-case-management.pdf
  11. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/made
  12. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/1998-07-29/debates/45381547-a4ca-4ba6-abf6-5c49e6a125aa/CivilProcedureRules
  13. https://gard.no/circulars/new-english-civil-procedure-rules-from-26-april-1999-requirements-on-members/
  14. https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1999/09/civil-litigation-the-new-rules-of-engagement
  15. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-101-2625?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  16. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/221/made
  17. https://www.judiciary.uk/18-the-application-of-the-amendments-to-the-civil-procedure-rules/
  18. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/262/made
  19. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-525-3094?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  20. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/impact-of-the-jackson-reforms.pdf
  21. https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/cpr-100th-pd-update.pdf
  22. http://disputeresolutionblog.practicallaw.com/the-disclosure-pilot-scheme-where-are-we-two-and-half-years-on/
  23. https://www.debevoise.com/insights/publications/2022/09/high-court-makes-the-disclosure-pilot-scheme
  24. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/LawSocietyLitigationConference.9thOctober2019.f-1.pdf
  25. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/part/1/made
  26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/english-civil-justice-after-the-woolf-and-jackson-reforms/overriding-objective-a-new-theory-of-justice-i/B705BAC10A0F68419126078EC062BC0D
  27. https://www.paulhastings.com/insights/london-litigation/cpr-changes-bring-mandatory-adr-from-1-october-2024
  28. https://www.msrs.co.uk/dont-overplay-your-hand-the-civil-procedure-rules/
  29. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part01#1.1
  30. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/costs-proportionality
  31. https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/comment-opinion/proportionality-in-litigation-costs-a-practical-update/
  32. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/costs-proportionality-illustrative-decisions
  33. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/rule/1.4
  34. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/661e2f42d4a839725cbd3d48/adr-rule-amendments.pdf
  35. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part26
  36. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27
  37. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27/pd_part27
  38. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part28
  39. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part28/pd_part28
  40. https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/frc-public-notice-updated.pdf
  41. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/part/26/made
  42. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part29
  43. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/part/29/made
  44. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part29/pd_part29
  45. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part35
  46. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
  47. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_pic
  48. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_ced
  49. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/CJC-Review-of-Pre-Action-Protocols-Phase-Two-Report.pdf
  50. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol
  51. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03
  52. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06
  53. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.4
  54. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.5
  55. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.3
  56. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.9
  57. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.7
  58. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.6
  59. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.14
  60. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/part/6/made
  61. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.17
  62. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06/pd_part06b
  63. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.20
  64. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.23
  65. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.26
  66. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06/pd_part06a
  67. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16
  68. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/part/16/made
  69. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16/pd_part16
  70. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/part/22/made
  71. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part17
  72. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/part/17/made
  73. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part17/pd_part17
  74. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58
  75. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31
  76. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31/pd_part31a
  77. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#31.11
  78. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#31.6
  79. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#31.5
  80. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#31.7
  81. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#31.10
  82. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#31.3
  83. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-57a-business-and-property-courts/practice-direction-57ad-disclosure-in-the-business-and-property-courts
  84. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part23
  85. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n244-application-notice
  86. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part23/pd_part23a
  87. https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/court-appeal-finds-parties-can-be-ordered-engage-adr-and-mediation
  88. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/mediation-blog/compulsory-adr-halsey-revisited/
  89. https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/adr/2023-11/courts-can-compel-parties-to-engage-in-adr-court-of-appeal-finds-comments-to-the-contrary-in-halsey-not-binding
  90. https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2023/uk/courts-do-have-the-power-to-order-parties-to-engage-in-adr
  91. https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2024/october/30/the-shift-towards-adr-in-english-litigation-what-does-this-mean-for-parties-going-forward
  92. https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2024/civil-procedure-rules-embed-adr-into-the-civil-justice-system
  93. https://connections.nortonrosefulbright.com/post/102jkln/rule-changes-to-reflect-the-courts-power-to-compel-adr
  94. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/new-court-rules-encourage-settlement-litigation
  95. https://becket-chambers.co.uk/articles/mandatory-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr/
  96. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/839/made
  97. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/839/contents/made
  98. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/inside-disputes/blog/202411-changes-to-cpr-to-reflect-courts-power-to-compel-adr
  99. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/106/made
  100. https://independentmediators.co.uk/amendments-to-the-civil-procedure-rules-cpr-to-incorporate-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr/
  101. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=87ca1530-3a64-40f1-b530-adf5999dd1bb
  102. https://connaughtlaw.com/uk-civil-litigation-history-1873-2025-timeline/
  103. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/44483/1/557.pdf
  104. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/jackson-final-report-140110.pdf
  105. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/who-we-are/centres-and-institutes/gcbfi/documents/cris-reports/cris-paper-2009-1.pdf
  106. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2017/02/27/adrian-zuckerman-the-laws-disgrace/
  107. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ccsr-interim-report-dec-15-final1.pdf
  108. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/speech-lj-jackson-was-it-all-worth-it-mar2018.pdf
  109. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/report-on-access-to-justice-for-litigants-in-person-nov2011.pdf
  110. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025
  111. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2024/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2024
  112. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8372/
  113. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2025/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2025
  114. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f16f01f3a6f407279ea8700/FOI_200512022_Civil_court_cases_-_plaintiff_success_rate.doc
  115. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/12/section/2
  116. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/civil-procedure-rules-committee/about
  117. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=abec6430-2ef8-4e4c-b3da-9b7ce8d17a53
  118. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1021/made
  119. https://www.legalsecretaryjournal.com/modern_updates_to_the_civil_procedure_rules
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.