Civil appeals to the County Court and the High Court

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.

CPR provisions

Civil appeals to the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal are generally governed by Part 52 of the CPR. General guidance on civil appeals can be found in Civil appeals: general and preliminary considerations—overview.

In addition to the provisions set out in CPR 52 and CPR PD 52A, practitioners appealing in the County Court or in the High Court also need to comply with the additional provisions set out in CPR PD 52B.

For guidance on the provisions in force before 1 October 2012, see 'Appeals before 1 October 2012' below.

Amendments have been made to appeals including CPR 52, CPR PD 52A, CPR PD 52B, CPR PD 52C and CPR PD 52D taking effect on 3 October 2016, with transitional provisions in respect of CPR 52 and CPR PD 52C. For further details of the 3 October 2016 changes see Practice Note: Changes to Part 52 in October

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

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—30 January 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including HM Courts & Tribunals Service’s updated guidance on the Damages Claims pilot scheme under CPR PD51ZB and the Court of Appeal decision in Barrowfen Properties Ltd v Girish Dahyabhai Patel (damages); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

No police duty to protect from third party harm—applying the Tindall principles (Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock, HD and others v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In this conjoined appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether the police held a duty of care to protect Ms Woodcock and CJ from harm caused by a third party; and whether the police’s investigative duty, pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, can arise before the claimant has suffered ill treatment at the hands of a third party. This decision represents the first occasion upon which the Court of Appeal has been asked to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and has provided some important points of practical application to practitioners in this area. Written by Jennie Oborne, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Amendments in retrospect—Repair or replace? (R v Revenue and Customs Commissioners)

Commercial analysis: An appeal was brought to the Supreme Court to determine the correct characterisation of a contract. The dispute related to whether two parties had varied an existing contract or rescinded and replaced it with a new one. The Court reviewed the applicable principles and decided that the agreements in question did constitute new agreements rescinding and replacing the former contracts. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Written by Alexander Whatley, barrister at 3PB Chambers.

Use of anti-enforcement and anti-anti-suit injunctions to prevent enforcement of Russian court judgments (Google LLC and Google Ireland v NAO Tsargrad Media and others)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimants and the defendants were parties to a number of agreements for the provision of services by the claimants. The agreements variously included jurisdiction clauses in favour of the English courts and an arbitration clause providing for LCIA arbitration in London. The claimants terminated the agreements against the defendants for reasons relating to sanctions or the dissemination of harmful material. The defendants brought proceedings before the Arbitrazh Court in Moscow seeking reinstatement of the services and the imposition of penalties for non-compliance. The Arbitrazh Court found in favour of the defendants (as did subsequent appeal courts), imposing compounding penalties of an unprecedented level. Having first commenced enforcement proceedings against Google Russia (now in liquidation), from late 2023 the defendants commenced enforcement proceedings in a number of other jurisdictions. In response, the claimants applied to the English court for anti-enforcement injunctions (AEI) and anti-anti-suit injunctions (AASI), to prevent recognition and enforcement of the Russian judgments in any jurisdiction outside Russia. The court granted the relief sought. Written by Camilla Macpherson.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News