Making an application and service

Before making an application

Before making an application you may wish to consider certain pre-application matters, such as whether or not it is necessary to make an application and the timing of the application. For guidance, see Practice Note: Pre-application considerations.

If your application must be made within a specific time frame, it may be necessary to seek an extension of time and/or relief from sanctions. For guidance, see Practice Notes:

  1. Agreements to extend time under CPR 3.8(4) (buffer agreements)

  2. Extension of time

  3. Relief from sanctions—when is an application for relief required?

By engaging in pre-application discussions it is often possible to agree certain aspects of the application or even agree all the terms of the order sought. For guidance on negotiation, settlement and orders by consent, see:

  1. Practice Notes: Consent orders and judgments and Tomlin orders

  2. Settlement and settling disputes—overview

Making an application

Applications for court orders are dealt with by CPR 23 and CPR PD 23A.

There are a number of stages to making a formal, on notice

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