This Practice Note considers case management of civil claims under the CPR, including the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost pursuant to CPR 1, and the specific case management powers of the court under CPR 3.1. For further information on case management of civil claims, including other powers available to the court, see: Court's case management powers—overview. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. Case management and the overriding objective (CPR 1) The CPR are a ‘procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost’ in accordance with the criteria in CPR 1.1(2) (CPR 1.1(1)). The criteria in CPR 1.1(2) are extensive and include ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing, saving expense, dealing with the case proportionately

A draft case management order must be discussed and prepared by the advocates and filed with the court (by the authority'>local authority advocate) no later than 11 am on the day before a case management hearing, further case management hearing or issues resolution hearing.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court stayed English proceedings challenging an enforcement and distressed disposal until related New York proceedings concerning an earlier up-tiering transaction were determined at first instance. The claims were sufficiently interconnected that the English law claim could not sensibly proceed separately without risking inconsistent findings, particularly on the validity of the up-tiering, valuation and whether the claimants’ notes were ‘out of the money’. The decision confirms that the governing question is whether a stay serves the interests of justice. An English jurisdictional nexus remains relevant, but may be outweighed where foreign proceedings are substantially advanced, concern the applicable foreign law and will resolve issues capable of binding the parties.

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published. Note: this Practice Note only gives guidance on the provisions implemented in April 2013. It does not provide guidance on any subsequent procedural amendments (whether to the CPR or any other procedural rules). Neither does it provide guidance on the implementation or interpretation of the April 2013 (or any subsequent) procedural updates. For guidance on the Jackson Reforms one-year on and on subsequent CPR updates, see Practice Note: Jackson Reforms—one year on [Archived] and CPR updates—overview respectively. On 1 April 2013, the Jackson Reforms, among other things, introduced new provisions relating to case management. The most important of these are considered below. For information on case management generally, see Case management—overview. Need for and purpose of the reforms The terms of reference for Lord Justice Jackson’s costs review included a requirement to ‘establish the effect case management

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: [insert name]        Claimant and [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 and ordered that OR heard the solicitor for the Claimant and the solicitor for the Defendant and made the following Order OR the parties having agreed the directions set out in paragraph(s) below which are made by consent] it is ordered that: Allocation/docketing [The Claim is allocated to the Multi-Track and is assigned to [ [His OR Her] Honour Circuit OR District Judge OR Master]

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. Note: save for where a defence has been received before 1 april 2013, this precedent is for historical purposes only. For guidance

This Practice Note considers allocation (by the court) of defended civil claims to one of the case management tracks: the small claims track, fast track, intermediate track or multi-track. It sets out what is meant by ‘allocation’, and considers the different key features of each of the tracks. The rules relating to allocation of civil claims vary depending on whether proceedings are issued before or after 1 October 2023. For a claim where proceedings are issued before 1 October 2023, there are three case management tracks: the small claims track, fast track and multi-track. For a claim where proceedings are issued on or after 1 October 2023, there are four case management tracks: the small claims track, fast track, intermediate track and multi-track. Note however that for personal injury claims, the rules vary depending on the date when the cause of action accrues, and for disease claims when the first letter of claim has been sent (pre/post-1 October 2023). For information on the key factors the court will consider when determining allocation

What is compliance? The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are a ‘procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost’ (CPR 1.1(1)). Compliance refers to the parties’ need to comply with these rules, the accompanying practice directions and any applicable court orders. The courts have the power to enforce compliance (CPR 1.1(2)(g)) and there may be sanctions for failure to comply with the defaulting party needing to apply for relief from sanctions (CPR 3.8). There are also court guides which set out specific rules and guidance for each applicable court in addition to what is provided for in the CPR. For further information on the various court guides, see Practice Note: Court guides and other guidance. Both the court and the parties are obliged to have regard to the overriding objective during the course of any litigation. For more information on the overriding objective in the context of case management, see Practice Note: Case management of civil claims under the CPR—Case management and the overriding objective (CPR 1). For

This Practice Note considers allocation (by the court) of defended civil claims to one of the case management tracks: the small claims track, fast track, intermediate track or multi-track, for claims that are issued on or after 1 October 2023. It considers the key factors the court will consider when determining allocation of claims (including provisional allocation), the matters set out in the court’s ‘notice of proposed allocation’ (NPA), the potential sanctions for failing to comply with the NPA and the circumstances when a claim may be re-allocated. Claims which are allocated to the fast track or intermediate track will also be assigned to a complexity band and this Practice Note sets out the different complexity bands. This Practice Note is to be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Case management—allocation—the different case management tracks, which sets out what is meant by ‘allocation’, and the key features of the different case management tracks (the small claims track, fast track, intermediate track and multi-track). Certain claims are automatically allocated

This Practice Note considers allocation (by the court) of defended civil claims to one of the case management tracks: the small claims track, fast track or multi-track, for claims that are issued before 1 October 2023. It considers the key factors the court will consider when determining allocation of claims (including provisional allocation), the matters set out in the court’s ‘notice of proposed allocation’ (NPA), the potential sanctions for failing to comply with the NPA, and the circumstances when a claim may be re-allocated. This Practice Note is to be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Case management—allocation—the different case management tracks, which sets out what is meant by ‘allocation’, and the key features of the different case management tracks (the small claims track, fast track and multi-track). Certain claims are automatically allocated to a track by virtue of the court in which the claim is proceeding, or the CPR provision under which the claim is brought and so the provisions in CPR 26 will not apply; for more information, see Practice

An appeal to the High Court against the decision of a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court on the basis that the decision was wrong in law or in excess of the court’s jurisdiction.

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. This case study is for use in registering a judgment under the enforcement provisions set out in Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I (Chapter III, section 2). Due to transitional provisions following the UK leaving the EU, a judgment