Court specific case management

Depending on the court in which a claim is proceeding, the proceedings may be subject to specific rules in the CPR and also to provisions which are additional to those set out in the CPR. These additional provisions are generally set out in the relevant court's guide, though certain courts also set out additional guidance in Practice Notes which are issued on an ad hoc basis by the judiciary. For information and links through to the specialist court guides, see Practice Note: Court guides and other guidance. For information on other guidance issued by the judiciary, see Practice Note: Dispute Resolution—judicial practice notes and guidance.

Given the courts' proactive and robust case management of claims before them, it is important that practitioners are aware of and comply with these additional provisions.

Structure of the civil courts in England and Wales

For detail of the structure and hierarchy of civil courts in England and Wales, see: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary—Structure of Courts and Tribunals System.

For information on which is the most appropriate court in which to start a claim and the types of claims that

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—3 July 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the Hague Judgments Convention coming into force for the UK this week and the Court of Appeal decision in AmTrust Specialty Ltd (formerly AmTrust Europe Ltd) v Endurance Worldwide Insurance Ltd (trading as Sompo International) (disclosure scheme in the Business and Property Courts); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

HCCH announces 2019 Judgments Convention to enter force in UK

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has announced that the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters entered into force for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025. This follows the UK's ratification of the Convention on 27 June 2024.

Disclosure under PD 57AD (disclosure scheme)-guidance on extended disclosure applications (AmTrust v Endurance)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has clarified the proper approach to extended disclosure applications under CPR Practice Direction 57AD, holding that judges must not pre-determine contested legal issues when assessing relevance. In allowing AmTrust’s appeal, the court confirmed that pre-contractual communications may be disclosable where incorporation or construction of insurance policies remains disputed, even where formal policy documents appear comprehensive. The decision provides important guidance on the disclosure scheme’s application in complex insurance disputes, particularly those involving professional indemnity coverage, ATE insurance, and claims under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (TP(RAI)A 2010). The judgment emphasises that CPR PD 57AD’s proportionality objectives cannot justify filtering disclosure through premature legal assessments, ensuring parties have access to potentially relevant material for trial. Written by Ben Amoah, Dispute Resolution knowledge lawyer at Farrer and Co LLP.

Court of Appeal implies term as to price of additional product under sale of goods contract (KSY Juice Blends UK Limited v Citrosuco GmbH)

Commercial analysis: This was a sale of goods dispute, in which the parties had agreed the price of a fixed quantity of product, with the price for additional product to be fixed at a later date, in order to allow for market volatility. When the parties did not agree on the price for the additional product, one party used that as an excuse to argue that there was no binding agreement with regard to that additional product.The Commercial Court decided that it was not appropriate to imply a term as to what the price for the additional product should be. There was, therefore, no binding agreement with regard to the additional product.The Court of Appeal has now disagreed and found that, on the facts of this case, a term could be implied into the contract that the price for the additional product should be the reasonable or market price (which, the Court of Appeal said, were the same thing). Dimitris Anassis, partner, and Reema Shour, professional support lawyer, both at Hill Dickinson, consider the court’s decision in KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News