Parties and their representatives

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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

191st Practice Direction update—access to public domain documents pilot—in force 1 January 2026

The 191st Practice Direction update will come into force on 1 January 2026. It introduces the ‘Access to public domain documents pilot’ (in Practice Direction 51ZH) for a two-year period (with an initial six-month review) in the Commercial Court, the London Circuit Commercial Court and the Financial List, to improve public access to documents that enter the public domain through their use in open court proceedings. Prompted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 and Lady Hale’s call for greater transparency, the pilot seeks to advance the principle of open justice by shifting from an application-based regime to a default position of proactive disclosure via CE-File. It applies to key categories of documents—such as skeleton arguments, written submissions, witness statements and expert reports—while preserving the court’s discretion to restrict access through confidentiality or anonymity orders. The pilot only applies to documents which enter the public domain via a hearing which takes place in public.

Law Society publishes practice note on conduct of litigation following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys

The Law Society has published guidance for solicitors, law firms and legal businesses on ensuring that only those authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) carry on the conduct of litigation, following the High Court judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341. The note explains that the conduct of litigation is a “reserved legal activity”, meaning that only individuals authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) or another approved regulator may undertake it. It provides detailed guidance on distinguishing between the formal “conduct of litigation” — such as issuing, filing and serving applications or statements of case — and other tasks that may be performed by non-authorised staff under appropriate supervision.

OPRC publishes summary of responses on digital justice system inclusion framework and pre-action model

The Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) has published a summary of responses to its draft inclusion framework and pre-action model for the digital justice system. A total of 47 responses were received, showing broad support for the OPRC’s objectives to enhance access to justice and promote digital inclusion. However, views differed on how best to achieve these aims. The OPRC intends to discuss the feedback at its open meeting scheduled for 20 October 2025, with next steps expected to be announced in early 2026.

Buyer entitled to terminate supply contract for seller’s repudiatory breach (Hitex v Uniserve Ltd)

Commercial analysis: The Court of Appeal has held that the initial purported termination by the buyer under a supply contract was unlawful so that the seller could have treated the buyer’s conduct as a repudiatory breach of contract, entitling the seller to terminate and claim damages. As the seller did not do so, the contract remained alive for performance and the seller was obliged to comply with its contractual delivery obligations. When it failed to do so, the buyer became entitled lawfully to terminate the supply contract. The seller’s claim for damages for non-acceptance of goods failed as a result. A related claim for commission on the uncollected goods brought by intermediaries also failed. The Court of Appeal did, however, agree with the seller that the buyer had not entered into the supply contract on the basis of a third-party misrepresentation as to the production capabilities of the seller’s factory, but had instead relied on its own due diligence. Therefore, the buyer’s alternative case of rescission for misrepresentation failed. Written by Andrew Meads, partner at Hill Dickinson LLP, and Reema Shour, legal director and Professional Support Lawyer at Hill Dickinson LLP.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News