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.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents