Standard direction order templates and model paragraphs for multi-track cases
Standard direction order templates and model paragraphs for multi-track cases

The following Dispute Resolution precedent provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Standard direction order templates and model paragraphs for multi-track cases

This Precedent and Drafting Note provide guidance on the standard direction order templates and model paragraphs to use in multi-track cases from Gov.uk—Standard direction order templates and model paragraphs for civil court cases. They should be used as the parties’ starting point when drafting their proposed directions to be submitted to the court as required in accordance with various provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The standard directions and model paragraphs are also to be used by the court when determining case management issues (CPR 29.1).

This Precedent should be considered together with the following multi-track case management directions Precedents, namely:

  1. Standard multi-track directions—no expert evidence

  2. Standard multi-track directions—single joint expert

Claim No. [insert claim number].

[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

[BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location]]]

[Specify division]

[Specify specialist court]

[Insert location] DISTRICT REGISTRY

OR

THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location]

[BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST]]

Between:

  1. [insert name]        Claimant

  1. and

  1. [insert name]        Defendant

_______________________________________

Draft directions order

_______________________________________

Warning: you must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this order, otherwise your case is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed. If you cannot comply, you are expected to make formal application to the court before any deadline imposed upon you expires.

On [date] [Circuit Judge] [District Judge] [Master] [Name] sitting at [Court OR Room Number,] [Name of Court] [considered the papers in the case

Popular documents