Parties and their representatives

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

The types of party that may be involved in litigation may vary. Litigation may be commenced or defended by individuals (including children), corporations, partnerships, sole traders, insolvent individuals or companies, groups and the estate of a deceased party. Those that bring or defend claims may instruct a legal professional to manage their claim or defence, or may choose to deal with the matter without legal representation (known as litigants in person or self-represented litigants). For an overview of the types of parties which may become involved (whether as claimant or defendant) in litigation in England and Wales, and the key procedural issues and practical considerations of which they or their legal advisors should be aware, see Practice Note: Dispute resolution—types of party.

For information on bringing or defending a claim on behalf of a person lacking capacity, see Practice Note: Capacity to litigate.

Multi-party actions

Claims may be brought or defended by multiple parties. Group claims (also known as class actions, collective actions or multi-party claims) may be pursued before the English courts via several procedural mechanisms (including group litigation orders

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

UK Supreme Court announces fee increases effective 1 April 2026

The UK Supreme Court has announced that its fees will increase from 1 April 2026 following recommendations from the Lord Chancellor. The increases reflect Consumer Prices Index inflation of 5.9% measured between March 2023 and March 2025, with the permission to appeal fee rising to £1,470 and the notice of appeal filing fee increasing to £9,500. These adjustments represent the second increase since 2011, following a 2024 decision to implement biennial fee reviews to account for inflation. Parties that have already filed permission to appeal applications will be subject to the new fees for any subsequent stages of their appeal proceedings. The Lord Chancellor sets Supreme Court fees under powers conferred by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

Third party costs—Court of Appeal confirms stay pending detailed assessment is case management decision (Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to stay an application for a third-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 until after the conclusion of the detailed assessment of the underlying bill of costs. Dismissing Nigeria’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there is no presumption that a third-party costs application should be determined before a detailed assessment. The question is purely one of case management, to be decided in accordance with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The decision, being within the scope of discretion allowed a judge, was not amenable to appeal; that a different judge would have reached a different conclusion was not in point. Where there is a real question whether any further sum will be payable following assessment (particularly where a substantial payment on account has already been made and costs are to be assessed on the standard basis), it is legitimate to stay the third party application to avoid wasting court resources on what may prove to be a pointless satellite exercise. Of general and at least equal significance to costs practitioners were the Court of Appeal’s strong comments (obiter dicta in strict terms) deprecating disproportionate detailed assessment processes and endorsing the use of sampling as a case management tool in cases involving very significant bills of legal costs. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

UKJT Report on Control of Digital Assets

The report, prepared by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce's Control Panel and published on 19 March 2026, provides technical, non-binding guidance for courts and legal practitioners on how digital assets are controlled in practice. The Panel was established at the invitation of the Lord Chancellor, following the Law Commission’s recognition that digital assets constitute a distinct ‘third category’ of property. The report emphasises that ‘control’ is a factual, functional concept, centred on the ability to exclude others, use and transfer an asset. It analyses various forms of control, including direct, multi-party, smart contract-based, delegated, and layered control, highlighting that real-world arrangements are often complex and overlapping. The report notes that the absence of a central operator and privacy-enhancing technologies may limit the effectiveness of traditional legal remedies. Overall, it points to a need for the law to develop incrementally in response to evolving technologies, with the courts adopting a flexible, context-specific approach focused on how control is in fact exercised in any given system.

Professional negligence and limitation—the roll of impecuniosity in constructive knowledge (Kay v Martineau Johnson)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal considered the correct approaches to actual knowledge and constructive knowledge in the context of solicitors’ professional negligence. Of note was the consideration of whether impecuniosity was a relevant factor in considering reasonable steps and the taking of expert advice for the purposes of the date of knowledge. Written by James Davies, barrister and Mediator at New Square Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Drafting the defence—drafting tips

Drafting the defence—drafting tipsThis Practice Note provides guidance on drafting a defence to a claim brought under CPR 7. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Drafting statements of case, which provides guidance on drafting statements of case in general, including formatting

Varying or revoking orders—court's general power under CPR 3.1(7)

Varying or revoking orders—court's general power under CPR 3.1(7)This Practice Note considers the court’s general case management power under CPR 3.1(7) to vary, amend or revoke a court order. It also looks when the court can vary, amend or revoke a final order and provides practical insights on

Online Civil Money Claims pilot scheme—CPR PD 51R

Online Civil Money Claims pilot scheme—CPR PD 51RThis Practice Note considers CPR PD 51R, which establishes a pilot scheme to test an online claims process for specified money claims in the County Court called the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) pilot (CPR PD 51R, para 2.1). The pilot is available

Judgments and orders—setting aside

Judgments and orders—setting asideThis Practice Note considers what action may be taken on receipt of a judgment, including when you can apply to correct a judgment, revoke it, appeal it or apply to have it set aside on the grounds that the judgment was either made without jurisdiction or obtained
Drafting the defence—drafting tips

Drafting the defence—drafting tips

Drafting the defence—drafting tipsThis Practice Note provides guidance on drafting a defence to a claim brought under CPR 7. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Drafting statements of case, which provides guidance on drafting statements of case in general, including formatting

Varying or revoking orders—court's general power under CPR 3.1(7)

Varying or revoking orders—court's general power under CPR 3.1(7)

Varying or revoking orders—court's general power under CPR 3.1(7)This Practice Note considers the court’s general case management power under CPR 3.1(7) to vary, amend or revoke a court order. It also looks when the court can vary, amend or revoke a final order and provides practical insights on

Online Civil Money Claims pilot scheme—CPR PD 51R

Online Civil Money Claims pilot scheme—CPR PD 51R

Online Civil Money Claims pilot scheme—CPR PD 51RThis Practice Note considers CPR PD 51R, which establishes a pilot scheme to test an online claims process for specified money claims in the County Court called the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) pilot (CPR PD 51R, para 2.1). The pilot is available

Judgments and orders—setting aside

Judgments and orders—setting aside

Judgments and orders—setting asideThis Practice Note considers what action may be taken on receipt of a judgment, including when you can apply to correct a judgment, revoke it, appeal it or apply to have it set aside on the grounds that the judgment was either made without jurisdiction or obtained