Summary judgment and strike out

Amendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023

Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes were intended to simplify the rules, and do not materially alter the substantive law or practice. The numbering and location of some provisions is changed. Accordingly, authorities which pre-date the 1 October 2023 amendments may include reference to the previous provisions and numbering. References in this Overview are to the wording of CPR Part 24 as currently in force.

For tables showing the destination of the old provisions and the derivation of the new provisions, see Practice Note: Summary judgment—CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24 destination and derivation tables.

For copies of CPR 24 and CPR PD 24 as in force up to 1 October 2023, see:

For further information see:

  1. LNB News 17/07/2023 62—Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2023

  2. LNB News 18/07/2023 98—157th and 158th Practice Direction and Pre-Action Protocol updates approved—in

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

No harm, no foul? Court of Appeal provides clarifications around controllers’ liability in the context of compensation claims under Article 82 of the UK GDPR (Farley and others v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (trading as Equiniti) (Information Commissioner intervening))

Information Law analysis: In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court decision which denied compensation to individuals affected by a data breach. The judgment contains helpful clarifications regarding compensation claims made pursuant to Article 82 of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR), including the requirements for establishing UK GDPR infringement, the scope of non-material damage and, more broadly, the position of the UK courts in relation to EU Court of Justice case law and its application in the context of domestic data protection rules. The Court of Appeal held that bringing a UK GDPR infringement claim does not require proof that personal data was actually disclosed to third parties. Unlawful processing is a sufficient basis in principle for damage to be suffered. There is also no minimum threshold for non-material damage when it comes to a data subject’s entitlement to compensation under Article 82 of the UK GDPR. The scope of such damage can include an objective, well-founded fear or apprehension of misuse of personal data. This judgment is also a helpful reminder of the broad scope of activities that fall within the concept of processing and the importance of controllers’ compliance with Articles 24, 25 and 32 of the UK GDPR and the general principles in Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR. Written by Marija Nonkovic, associate at Kemp IT Law.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents