The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) have published a report on streamlining variation margin in centrally cleared markets. The report outlines further policy work following on from the September 2022 report ‘Review of margining practices’. As part of this further policy work, CPMI-IOSCO has explored ways to foster market participants’ preparedness for above-average variation margin (VM) calls through the efficient collection and distribution of VM in centrally cleared markets.

SCCO Guide defines this as the rules'>Civil Procedure Rules which, supplemented by their practice directions, govern the procedure to be followed in most civil cases brought in the SCCO. The text of the CPR and the practice directions are set out in practitioner’s books such as the Civil Court Practice and may also be found on the justice.gov.uk website.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court held that the defendant's failure to make a CPR 11 challenge application after filing of an acknowledgment of service meant he was deemed to have accepted the court's jurisdiction. While there is no requirement for a defendant to file an acknowledgment of service form, if they consider there has not been valid service following the Court of Appeal in Bellway Homes Ltd v The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House, once one is filed a challenge must be made if the court's jurisdiction is disputed.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The case related to an application made by the claimants under CPR 18.1 at an early stage of the proceeding (prior to pleadings being served) to require the defendants to provide information and documents that would enable them to determine whether further parties ought to be joined to the claim and information enabling them to plead the case more fully. The court refused the application on a number of bases, including that the request did not relate to matters presently in dispute and that the documents or information were not reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the claimants to prepare their case. Written by Christopher Humby, senior associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

CPR 23 refers to Part 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules in England and Wales, which governs the making and management of applications (interim or otherwise) in civil court proceedings. It sets out how parties apply to the court, when an application notice is required, service and evidence requirements (including witness statements), and the procedure for hearings (on notice, without notice, or dealt with without a hearing). CPR 23 is central to day-to-day civil litigation practice, covering applications for directions, extensions of time, specific disclosure, relief from sanctions and many other case management orders. It works alongside related provisions such as CPR 3 (case management) and Practice Directions, and is not a statutory code but a core component of the court rules made under the Civil Procedure Act 1997. The term “CPR 23” is specific to civil procedure in England and Wales. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland have their own court rules for motions and applications (e.g. Rules of the Court of Session, County Court Rules, Rules of the Superior Courts) and do not use the CPR 23 terminology, though the functional role of interim applications is broadly comparable.

This judgment demonstrates some of the complexities that can arise where a court makes an order under CPR 23.8(c) without a hearing. Although in this case the judge found that it was perfectly within the Deputy Master’s jurisdiction to do so and that the order he made was entirely justified, through a serious of subsequent misunderstandings that followed, what should have been albeit a relatively complex application for permission to amend, was compounded by something akin to a procedural obstacle course, until the matter finally came before a Judge a year later. In giving judgment, the judge considered the effect of the parties’ agreement staying the action (but with no stay order in place from the court), the endorsement of orders on application notices without a hearing under CPR 23.8(c) and the applicable tests for seeking to revoke and or set aside such orders before rejecting such applications and concluding that the original endorsements should be drawn up, sealed and served by the court. NOTE: THIS DECISION HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY APPEALED.

CPR 25.12 states that a defendant may apply for security for costs and that such an application must be supported by evidence. However, there is no reference to whether there is any difference when dealing with a company or an individual. The difference can be seen in CPR 25.13 which sets out the conditions to be satisfied if seeking security for costs. While it can be seen that some of the conditions are specific to

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case involved an application for pre-action disclosure made by a bus company (Diamond) against Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) for disclosure of anonymised passenger data held by TfWM to allow Diamond to pursue its claim of substantial under-reimbursement against TfWM arising from its participation in a mandatory concessionary bus travel scheme. The court held that the jurisdictional threshold under CPR 31.16(3) had been satisfied, and that taking a ‘big picture view’, the discretionary considerations weighed significantly in favour of granting the relief sought. The judgment represents a rare decision at High Court judge level of the oft-overlooked issue of pre-action disclosure. It also provides guidance on the application of CPR 31.16 and the principles to be applied by the court in exercising its discretion to make such an order. Written by Stephen Connolly, barrister, and Hateema Zia, pupil barrister, both at Exchange Chambers, Manchester.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Costs Judge Leonard ruled that the provisions of Part 36 had no application to an assessment of a solicitor’s bill under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (SA 1974). The solicitors had argued that their offer, expressed to be under Part 36, displaced the usual ‘one fifth rule’ in such proceedings, and that as their offer had been for a lesser sum than was found to be due at the end of the assessment, they were entitled to the benefit of the enhancement provisions under Part 36. This was rejected on the basis that Part 36 could not displace the primary statute. Written by Alice Nash, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note traces the route to reform of Part 36 in April 2015. It is adapted from material produced by LexisNexis® for a series of seminars in January 2015 on the new Part 36, run in conjunction with Ed Pepperall QC (chair of the CPRC sub-committee on Part 36) of St Philip’s chambers. Note: hyperlink reference to CPR 36 in this Practice Note take you through to CPR 36 in force as at 6 April 2015. Where we reference the pre-6 April 2015 rules we cite these as the 'Old Rule 36'. If you need access to the pre-6 April rules and practice directions, please click below: Why so many changes to Part 36? Since its introduction in the Civil Procedure Rules in 1998, CPR 36 has undergone a number of reforms in: April 2007, April 2013 and now, again, April 2015. This latest incarnation represents more of a tidying up and codifying

Disclosure of pleadings CPR 5.4C provides that, as a general rule, a person who is not a party to litigation is entitled to obtain from the court copies of the pleadings: '(1) The general rule is that a person who is not a party to proceedings may obtain from the court records a copy of – (a) a statement of case, but not any documents filed with or attached to the statement of case, or intended by the party whose statement it is to be served with it; (b) a judgment or order given or made in public (whether made at a hearing or without a hearing).' The Civil Procedure Rules do not say anything, however, about whether a party can voluntarily share the pleadings with a non-party without the non-party having to make an application to the court to obtain

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. For further information on previous and/or subsequent amendments to the CPR, see: CPR updates—overview and Procedure Rule Committee minutes—overview. Agenda and minutes The draft agenda for the 11 May 2018 CPR Committee (CPRC) open meeting is available here: The agreed minutes can also be found here: The meeting was chaired by Mr Justice Coulson, although Sir Terence Etherton was present to give the introductory remarks, in particular reflecting on the breadth of work undertaken by the CPRC and the particular success of the CPRC’s open meetings (which have been taking place since June 2006). Membership (Agenda item 3) It was noted that: • District Judge Lethem will remain on the CPRC for a further term • a new barrister member will be appointed to replace Mr Johnathan Klein • Ms Kate Wellington,