The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
ARCHIVED: Warning: this is for historical purposes only. This pilot scheme has now ended.
The Automatic Pilot Scheme (the Scheme) applied to all claims started on or after 1 October 2009 and ran until 30 September 2012.
The Scheme worked so that in the event of default by a party to file important documents during the proceedings their claim was automatically struck out without any further order of the court. In addition, the Scheme provided that where parties wished to seek a stay of proceedings to explore settlement there was, no automatic strike out but, an automatic order for a stay. It was therefore important to be aware of the circumstances in which the Scheme applied which were where:
all parties requested a stay of the proceedings for a period of one month
any party failed to file an allocation questionnaire
a party failed to file a pre-trial checklist and the case involved one claimant and one defendant and was allocated to the fast track
The provisions of the Scheme were set out in practice direction 51B.
The Scheme provided that where all the parties requested a stay the court would automatically order the stay and would notify the parties that the stay had bee
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
This Practice Note considers the different categories of contractual damages that may be available for financial loss (pecuniary loss), ie expectation-based damages, reliance-based damages and gains-based damages.For guidance on contractual damages generally, see Practice Note: Contractual
When defendants are guilty, they have a choice to plead guilty or to put the prosecution to proof. When they plead guilty they may benefit from a reduction in their sentence as a result, see Practice Note: Credit for guilty plea. However, the Sentencing Council's overarching guidelines on reduction
Tipping off and prejudicing an investigationIt would undermine the benefit to the authorities if, a suspicious activity report (SAR) having been made, the alleged offender were to be made aware of the interest in their activities so that they could take steps to cover up their misdeeds or disappear.
This Precedent letter covers disclosure obligations under CPR 31. It does not apply to proceedings subject to the disclosure pilot scheme under CPR PD 51U. For guidance on the disclosure pilot scheme, see Practice Note: Business and Property Courts—the disclosure pilot scheme. For a client letter on
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.