Court's case management powers

The court's aim is to ensure that cases are dealt with justly and at proportionate cost—in other words, in accordance with the overriding objective in CPR 1. It has wide powers to manage a claim so as to effect furtherance of that objective and CPR 1.4 provides that the court must 'further the overriding objective by actively managing cases'. Active management of cases can include any of the steps set out in CPR 1.4(2)—for more information, see Practice Note: Case management of civil claims under the CPR—Case management and the overriding objective (CPR 1).

Cases are largely managed through the court's case management, including ‘directions’ given by the court which set out the steps the parties are required to take to prepare the case for trial, and the time limits within which each of these steps should be taken. Especially in higher value and more complex claims, the first point at which the parties are likely to be before the court to consider the progress of the matter to date and for the court to give directions going forward,

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

Transparency and Open Justice Board publishes finalised open justice objectives for courts

The Transparency and Open Justice Board has published its finalised Key Objectives in July 2025, following a consultation process initiated in December 2024. These objectives were approved at the Board’s meeting and the Board has concurrently issued its formal response to the engagement received. The next phase will involve all Courts and Tribunals evaluating their current practices against these objectives. Where practices fall short, institutions will be required to develop change programmes aimed at achieving compliance.

MPs call for review to fix 'dysfunctional' county courts

Law360, London: On 21 July 2025, parliamentarians called for an 'urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch' review of the County Court system after a scathing report warned of unacceptable levels of delays, rat infestations in buildings and outdated operations.

Supreme Court delivers judgment on dishonest assistance liability in breach of fiduciary duties case (Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd (in liquidation) and another)

The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by a majority (Lord Burrows dissenting) affirming that a defendant will be liable in dishonest assistance for assisting a fiduciary who has made unauthorised profits in breach of their fiduciary duties to dissipate those profits to the detriment of the company. James Pickering KC, barrister at Enterprise Chambers, Christopher Parker KC, barrister at Maitland Chambers, and Eleanor Temple KC, barrister at Kings Chambers, comment on the implications of the judgment.

Standards of candour in closed hearings, and corporate witness statements (Attorney General v BBC; R (‘Beth’) v IPT)

Public Law analysis: In reviewing the conduct of MI5 in two sets of High Court proceedings, the court considered the serious implications of the provision of false information in the context of closed proceedings. The court provided an overview of the limited circumstances which justify departure from the principle of open justice pursuant to section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (‘JSA 2013), acknowledging that the appointment of special advocates mitigates rather than extinguishing the inherent unfairness that arises. In this case, the special advocates, the High Court, and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (‘IPT’) were all misled on a key issue and had made decisions relying upon this misinformation. The court recognised that the safeguards in closed material proceedings are reliant on the high standards of candour of MI5 and expressed the need for a prompt and effective investigation when there is evidence of a departure from this high standard. The importance of compliance with CPR 32 PD, para 18.2, which applies to government departments as well as corporate entities, was also considered (para [173]). Written by Alexandra Scott, barrister at Mountford Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News