Court specific case management

Depending on the court in which a claim is proceeding, the proceedings may be subject to specific rules in the CPR and also to provisions which are additional to those set out in the CPR. These additional provisions are generally set out in the relevant court's guide, though certain courts also set out additional guidance in ‘Practice Notes’ which are issued on an ad hoc basis by the judiciary. For information and links through to the specialist court guides, see Practice Note: Court guides and other guidance. For information on other guidance issued by the judiciary, see Practice Note: Dispute Resolution—judicial practice notes and guidance.

Given the courts' pro-active and robust case management of claims before them, it is important that practitioners are aware of and comply with these additional provisions.

Structure of the civil courts in England and Wales

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.

For information on which is the most appropriate court in which to start a claim and the types of claims that

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Court of Appeal—final anti-suit injunction varied to avoid Russian court penalty (UniCredit v RusChemAlliance)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal ordered that a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) should be varied to remove the injunctive element but maintain a declaration that the English court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The applicant bank (UniCredit) would otherwise have incurred a significant penalty from the Russian court. The original ASI had prevented the respondent (RCA) (who had breached the Paris-seated arbitration clause) from bringing proceedings in Russia. The court confirmed that CPR 3.1 (the court’s general powers of management) and CPR 52.30 (reopening of final appeals) provide the court with powers to vary or revoke an ASI, if the commercial situation allows. There is no material distinction between where the order is an interim vs a final order and a pragmatic approach will be afforded when considering factors related to the application, namely (i) if the applicant has been coerced, (ii) English public policy and (iii) the impact if the application is not granted. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.

Transactions at an undervalue, sham litigation and settlements, Marex tort, abuse of process (Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd (in liquidation) v Marlborough Developments Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This judgment concerned two sets of legal proceedings connected to allegations of serious dishonesty, fraudulent activity and abusive litigation tactics by various parties to obstruct the enforcement of a judgment. Dr Smith and Mr Ruhan had been long-term adversaries in prolonged and bitter litigation against each other. However, they formed the ‘unholiest of unholy alliances’ in colluding in a scheme to frustrate Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd’s (HPII’s) efforts to enforce a judgment obtained against Mr Ruhan for £102.26m. The scheme included companies controlled by Dr Smith fabricating litigation against Mr Ruhan leading to a default judgment for £850m, a fabricated settlement agreement and the transfer of assets to entities controlled by Dr Smith. The court found that the transactions were transactions at undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), set aside the fraudulent default judgment, struck out the sham proceedings and issued injunctions to protect HPII’s judgment rights against further tortious interference. Written by Justin Perring, barrister, New Square Chambers.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—20 February 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the publication of the new model forms under CPR, the Supreme Court decision in Nasir v Zavarco Plc (doctrine of merger), the Court of Appeal decision in EE Ltd v Virgin Mobile Telecoms Ltd (exclusions of liability) and a costs decision in Reeves v Frain (invalid damages based agreements); details of our most recently published content; dates for your diary and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

The Supreme Court holds that the doctrine of merger does not extend to declaratory judgments (Nasir v Zavarco Plc)

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of merger is confined to ‘coercive judgments’ and does not extend to declaratory judgments. Jack Mitchell of Old Square Chambers comments on the implications of the judgment.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News