Civil appeals to the County Court and the High Court

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.

CPR provisions

Civil appeals to the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal are generally governed by Part 52 of the CPR. General guidance on civil appeals can be found in Civil appeals: general and preliminary considerations—overview.

Starting an appeal in the County Court or the High Court

In addition to the general provisions for starting an appeal contained in CPR PD 52A, an appellant appealing to the County Court or the High Court must also comply with the provisions in CPR PD 52B. These include, among other things, specific requirements in relation to filing and serving the appellant's notice and extending time in which to file.

For more detail see Practice Note: Starting an appeal in the County Court or the High Court.

Responding to an appellant's notice

Generally, the respondent only needs to take action in an appeal once notified that the appellant has, or does not need,

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

Court of Appeal confirms narrow scope for post-limitation substitution in wrong defendant cases (Adcamp LLP v Office Properties)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has ruled that CPR 19.6(3)(b) does not permit substitution of defendants after expiry of the relevant limitation period where such substitution would change the essential facts necessary to establish liability against the substituted defendant. The claimants (respondents in the appeal) had issued proceedings against firms which had acquired the alleged wrongdoers, believing that any liabilities had been transferred. When it emerged (or was at least disputed) that liabilities had not been transferred, they sought to add or substitute the predecessor firm after limitation had expired. The Court of Appeal concluded that CPR 19.6(3)(b) was not engaged since the substitution would change the claim in substance, as an essential element of the case against the original defendant (the pleaded basis for the acquiring firm’s liability) would be replaced by the primary liability claim against the substituted defendant. It was, in effect, a different claim against a different party. The Court of Appeal was clear that any perceived harshness this might cause to claimants could not be mitigated by adopting a broad reading of CPR 19.6(3)(b). Rather, it considered the problem (if any) was caused by earlier binding Court of Appeal authority which had confined the ‘mistake’ gateway in CPR 19.6(3)(a) to errors of name (misnomer) and excluded cases of mistaken legal responsibility/liability (identity). Any solution, if required, would therefore be a matter for the Supreme Court.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents