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' pro-active 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

Disclosure in the context of jurisdiction challenges—court reaffirms two-stage test and emphasises proportionality (Alesayi v Bank Audi SAL)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has clarified the test governing applications pursuant to CPR 31.12 for specific disclosure in the context of jurisdiction challenges. Mr Justice Dias re-affirmed that the appropriate test remains the two-stage test set out in Rome v Punjab National Bank, and rejected the submission that a separate test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ applies. However, in that context, the court emphasised that disclosure must be both proportionate and targeted, and cautioned against allowing jurisdiction applications to evolve into ‘mini-trials’. Written by Alexandra Prato, Associate at RPC.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—1 May 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 11th edition of the King’s Bench Guide and the Court of Appeal decision in Freeman v Home Farm Ellingham Ltd (specific performance); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Court compels disclosure in £500,000 phone crypto-theft case

Law360, London: The victim of a phone-snatching in London has secured a court order compelling four companies offering digital asset exchange services to disclose documents tied to an alleged fraud perpetrated against them after £500,000 (US$667,000) in cryptocurrency was drained from his account.

Understating the incurred costs in a cost budget did not amount to misconduct (Vardy v Rooney)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Cavanagh considered an appeal from a preliminary issues hearing relating to costs assessment proceedings following the trial in this well-publicised litigation. The defendant, Coleen Rooney, had included only the costs which were considered to be reasonable and proportionate within her budget, instead of actual expenditure. The judge agreed with the first instance decision of Master Gordon-Saker and concluded that the defendant had not acted unreasonably or improperly in the approach taken to the incurred costs of her budget. Whilst the court was critical of the lack of transparency and the failure to make clear the basis on which the incurred costs had been set out, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant had acted unreasonably or improperly so as to warrant a sanction for misconduct. This is an important decision as it will inevitably affect the approach taken by some parties regarding the incurred costs of a budget. Written by Claire Kretzmann, associate costs lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News