Court's case management powers

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.

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