Court and the legal profession

This topic contains information that applies to the civil courts generally, such as links to court guides published by the individual courts and details of fees charged in the civil courts.

For detail of the structure and hierarchy of civil courts in England and Wales, see: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary—Structure of Courts and Tribunals System.

Online dispute resolution and the online court

Lord Justice Briggs, in his Final Report on the Civil Courts Structure Review, which was published on 27 July 2016, recommended the creation of an online court for the resolution of certain disputes. Since that report, there has been much discussion among the judiciary and elsewhere of the concept of online dispute resolution (ODR) and the need for digitisation of the dispute resolution process for civil proceedings in England and Wales.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service embarked on a significant reform programme for the justice system, which included the introduction of schemes to test online court environments.

The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 also provided for Online Procedure Rules (OPR) to govern practice and procedure of online civil proceedings, and for the introduction

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

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.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents