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

Interference with rights to light—claimants receive a substantial award based on negotiating damages (Cooper v Ludgate House)

Property Disputes analysis: It is perhaps unsurprising that an injunction was refused in Cooper v Ludgate House where the level of harm caused by loss of light was not at the higher end of the scale and the damage done to the defendant developer and to the public interest (which both parties accepted should be taken into account) would be entirely disproportionate. The High Court confirmed that negotiating damages remained available for the loss of the rights to enforce an easement after the case of One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner and awarded £500,000 and £350,000 to the claimants respectively. This was very considerably less than the £3-£3.7m that was sought by the claimants, and considerably more than the diminution in value of each property at around £60,000 and £20,000. Consequentials are being addressed in October 2025 and it will be interesting to see the decision on costs and whether either party wishes to appeal. Written by Tiffany Scott KC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers.

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—6 June 2025

Dispute Resolution analysis: The minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) meeting of 6 June 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including open justice and access to court documents, electronic filing reforms, traffic enforcement procedures, summary assessment of costs, arbitration updates, disclosure rules, civil restraint orders, closed material procedures, judicial review reforms for infrastructure projects, whiplash reforms, digital services, and miscellaneous procedural updates.

Court of Appeal—doctrine of undisclosed principal and the law of agency (Berge Bulk Shipping Pte Ltd v Taumata Plantation Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: On 10 July 2025, the Court of Appeal (Males, Falk and Zacaroli LJJ) unanimously dismissed an appeal against an order holding that the English court had no jurisdiction to hear a claim against three New Zealand companies regarding various letters of indemnity. David Bailey KC and James Goudkamp represented the successful respondents/defendants. The court’s decision constitutes the leading modern articulation of the law governing undisclosed principals, and is a landmark judgment in the law of agency more generally.

Can a bankruptcy petition be heard at a hearing listed for a set-aside application? When can a guarantee found a petition? (Matthews v BSN (SW) Property Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: On appeal, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) held that it was not a procedural irregularity for the judge at first instance to go on and hear the bankruptcy petition, after he had dismissed an application to set aside an earlier order. The question of procedural irregularity is one of substance not of form. The judicial act of deciding what to hear, and when, is not hamstrung by the administrative act by the court staff of publishing a list of matters to be heard on a particular occasion. The court also reviewed the law on when a guarantee creates a debt in a liquidated sum, which was another of the six grounds of appeal. When acting for the creditor, consider whether the next hearing can be used to hear the petition. When acting for the debtor, raise any objections to hearing the petition at the time. Written by Robert Machell, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News