This Practice Note considers the principles of costs recovery for money claims under Section II of CPR 45 when seeking costs following a summary judgment application. It considers the claimant’s position and whether the fixed costs regime in CPR 45 applies and whether that regime can be disapplied. It also considers the position if the claimant withdraws a summary judgment application. The Practice Note also considers the position of the defendant where it successfully opposes an application for summary judgment and provides guidance on whether the court will order indemnity costs as well as the implications for costs budgeting. Note, this Practice Note is in respect of money claims under Section II of CPR 45. The current CPR 45.16(2) was rule 45.1(2)—both the current and old rules provide that fixed costs apply where the only claim is a claim for a ‘specified sum of money’ and ‘summary judgment is given under Part 24’. For fixed costs money claims that were issued prior to 1 October 2023, the old rule 45 applies. This Practice Note provides

This Practice Note explains summary judgment under CPR 24: identifying who can apply for summary judgment, the timing of any summary judgment application and when summary judgment is not available. For guidance on the procedure for making an application for summary judgment, see Practice Note: Summary judgment—making an application. For guidance on the courts’ approach to deciding summary judgment applications, see Practice Note: Summary judgment—general principles. Amendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023 Practitioners should note that the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes were intended to simplify the rules, and do not materially alter the substantive law or practice. The numbering and location of some provisions was changed. Accordingly, authorities which pre-date the 1 October 2023 amendments may include reference to the previous provisions and numbering. References in this Practice Note are to the wording of CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24 as in force from 1 October 2023. For tables

Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence analysis: Summary judgment was given for the defendant in four claims brought by its employees who alleged that they contracted coronavirus while at work at the defendant’s factory in June 2020. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the court found that even if the claimants could prove breach of duty by the defendant, they faced an impossible task in proving a causal link between a breach of duty and contracting coronavirus. At that time coronavirus was everywhere, not just in the factory, and the claimants had not been able to serve any medical or other expert evidence to establish a causal link. Further, the court was not prepared to extend the Fairchild exception to the causation rules to include the risks of contracting coronavirus. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister, at Gatehouse Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: the Queen’s Bench Division has granted a defendant’s application for summary judgment on claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation in a franchise dispute. The claimant’s attempts to amend its claim at a late stage in the proceedings to include allegations of fraud (and thereby extend the relevant limitation period) were unsuccessful and the claimant therefore had no answer to the limitation defence on these claims. The court ordered the claimant to pay security for costs in relation to the remaining claims, on a staged basis.

Pensions analysis: This case is an unusual example of summary judgment being obtained by a claimant against those alleged to have dishonestly assisted a breach of trust, notwithstanding that dishonesty was strenuously denied. The decision underlines that, in an appropriate case, there is nothing to prevent such an application succeeding, particularly where the primary facts known to the defendant(s) can be readily established or are common ground and where the real issue is, objectively, whether the defendant’s actions were dishonest. In this case, the court found that, by taking steps to expose the claimant’s pension savings to risks they knew were not authorised, the defendants had acted dishonestly by the standards of ordinary and decent people.

TMT analysis: The Court of Appeal granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant, Geo TV Ltd (Geo), overturning the High Court decision. The court held that a defence against defamation under section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996 (DA 1996) (which relates to the publication of fair and accurate report of proceedings at a public meeting) was capable of summary determination. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.

The CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment are amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR 24 is substituted and CPR PD 24 is revoked. (Most of the Practice Direction consisted of repetition of Part 24 and other rules, with the exception of some provisions which are imported into CPR 24.) The changes are intended to simplify the rules, and do not materially alter

This Practice Note provides guidance on the general principles that the court applies in an application for summary judgment under CPR 24. It highlights the two-stage test under CPR 24.3, explains the concepts of 'real prospect of success' and 'compelling reason for trial' and notes the leading authority of Easyair v Opal Telecom. It also sets out how the courts approach summary judgment applications in practice, looking at the approach to the burden of proof, factual disputes and disputes on points of law. Amendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023 Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes were intended to simplify the rules, and do not materially alter the substantive law or practice. The numbering and location of some provisions is changed. Accordingly, authorities which pre-date the 1 October 2023 amendments may include reference to the previous provisions and numbering. References in this Practice Note are to the wording of CPR 24 as

As discussed in Practice Note: Summary judgment—general principles, the core test for a summary judgment application is whether or not the respondent has no real prospect of succeeding on their claim or defence or on a particular issue. The threshold for having a ‘real’ prospect of success is very low; it is therefore instructive to see illustrations of circumstances in which the courts have found that a respondent’s position was so poor that it actually lacked any ‘real’ prospect of succeeding at trial. The focus of this Practice Note is on decisions from 2026 onwards. Case details Date of judgment Outline of facts Why did the respondent lack ‘real’ prospects of success? Tripwire South LLC v Astor International Ltd King’s Bench Division [2026] EWHC 2646 (KB) 16 October 2026 Tripwire South LLC and Astor International Ltd, both in the explosives industry, entered into back-to-back contracts dated 12 September 2024. Astor agreed to sell Tripwire 16 million kg of TNT over two years at USD 10.50/kg, and Tripwire agreed to sell the

This Practice Note sets out how to apply for summary judgment under CPR 24. It discusses the specific procedural requirements for an application made under CPR 24, including the information to be included in the application notice, the form and content of the evidence in support and the timing for service of evidence. 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 further: Court specific guidance below. For guidance on when to bring a summary judgment application, with regard to both grounds and general timing issues, see Practice Notes: • Summary judgment applications—what, who and when • Summary judgment—general principles Amendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023 Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes were intended to simplify the rules, and do

This Practice Note considers what may happen at a summary judgment application under CPR 24, including case management issues, what orders the court can make (including conditional orders), costs of the application and practical considerations when planning to bring a summary judgment application. For guidance on how to make a summary judgment application, see Practice Note: Summary judgment—making an application. For guidance on the principles and grounds on which a summary judgment application may be brought and the factors the court will take into account on such hearings, see Practice Notes: Summary judgment—general principles. Note: it is possible that the court may determine a summary judgment application without an oral hearing. In RGCM v Lockwood, Falk J, at the request of the claimant, dealt with its summary judgment application without a hearing, having concluded that it was appropriate to do so under CPR 23.8. For guidance on applications without hearings, including requesting that an application be disposed of in that manner, see Practice Note: Applications without a hearing (paper applications). Amendments

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: On 10 July 2026, the ICO opened a consultation on its draft corporate strategy, which is intended to cover the period 2026–28 and provide a bridge between ICO25 and the future Information Commission governance model. The consultation closes at 11:59 pm (GMT) on 23 August 2026, after which the ICO is expected to finalise the strategy for implementation in autumn 2026. For more information, see: LNB News 14/07/2026 4. In October 2022, the Information Commission’s Office (ICO) published its three-year strategic plan covering the period until October 2025 (known as ICO25), with the aim of promoting transparency and thereby increasing legal and regulatory certainty for organisations, particularly those with a business interest in processing personal data and innovating in this sector. This Practice Note provides a practical outline of that mission statement, and explains how practitioners can help those they advise to plan and prepare based upon what is known about the upcoming areas of focus. This Practice Note presumes a familiarity with all aspects of data protection law,