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 application that will be determined at a hearing:

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 PI & Clinical Negligence News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents