Civil Procedure Rules


The Civil Procedure Rules were introduced in 1997 as per the Civil Procedure Act 1997 by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and are the rules of civil procedure used by the Court of Appeal, High Court of Justice, and the County Court in civil cases in England and Wales. They apply to all cases commenced after 26 April 1999, and largely replace the Rules of the Supreme Court and the County Court Rules. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 is the statutory instrument listing the rules.
The CPR were designed to improve access to justice by making legal proceedings cheaper, quicker, and easier to understand for non-lawyers. As a consequence of this, many former, older legal terms were replaced with "plain English" equivalents, such as "claimant" for "plaintiff" and "witness summons" for "subpoena".
Unlike the previous rules of civil procedure, the CPR commence with a statement of their "overriding objective", both to aid in the application of specific provisions and to guide behaviour where no specific rule applies.

History

In 1994, the Lord Chancellor instructed the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf, to report on options to consolidate the existing rules of civil procedure.
On 16 June 1995, Lord Woolf published an interim report on Access to Justice. The interim report was the subject of extensive academic commentary. For example, American law professor Richard Marcus Jr. pointed out that the interim report was clearly inspired by the experience of the US federal courts with case management, which grew out of their experience with managing complex litigation. During the 1960s, a massive antitrust scandal in the American electrical equipment industry had led to the enactment of a multidistrict litigation statute in 1968 and the creation of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In 1969, the panel published the Manual on Complex Litigation, which proposed that American judges should take a more active role in the management and development of complex cases during the pretrial phase of litigation. This recommendation touched off the case management movement of the 1970s and 1980s in American courts.
On 26 July 1996, Lord Woolf published his final Access to Justice Report 1996 in which he "identified a number of principles the civil justice system should meet to ensure access to justice. The system should –
Lord Woolf listed two of the requirements of case management as "fixing timetables for the parties to take particular steps in the case; and limiting disclosure and expert evidence".
The second thread of the report was to control the cost of litigation, both in time and money, by focusing on key issues rather than every possible issue and limiting the amount of work that has to be done on the case.
The report was accompanied by draft rules of practice designed to implement Lord Woolf's proposals. These rules granted wide management powers to the court, proposed that cases be allocated to one of three tracks depending on their nature, limiting or requiring specific actions, and introduced the concept of proportionality to the costs regime.
The Civil Procedure Act 1997 was enacted on 27 February 1997. It conferred the power to make civil procedure rules. It also established the Civil Justice Council, a body composed of members of the judiciary, members of the legal professions and civil servants, and charged with reviewing the civil justice system.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 were made on 10 December 1998 and came into force on 26 April 1999. The draft rules of practice formed their core.

Contents

The overriding objective

Implemented as a result of reforms suggested by Lord Woolf and his committee, one of the innovations of the rules is the "overriding objective" embodied in Part 1 of the Rules, which states:
The rules are written to be intelligible not just to lawyers but also to litigants in person.

Part 2: Application and interpretation of the rules

The part provides for interpretation of a number of terms used throughout the CPR, the roles of court staff and judges, and issues concerned with time durations and limits. Rule 2.11 is one of a number of rules which make provision for the parties to a dispute to vary the certain rules by written agreement.

Part 3: General powers of the court

Part 3.1 incorporates a general court power to "extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction or court order".

Part 6: service of documents

Part 6 identifies the valid ways in which legal documents in general, and specifically a claim form, may be served. Personal service to an individual or to an organisation involves giving the document to the individual, to "a person holding a senior position within the company or corporation" or, in the case of a in a business partnership, to one of the partners or to a person who exercises "control or management" of the partnership at its principal place of business.

Part 7: service of a claim form

Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant. Service of a claim form must take place within four months of the date when the claim form is issued, or within six months if it is to be issued outside the jurisdiction of the court, i.e. outside England and Wales and any part of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom adjoining England and Wales.

Part 8: application for a judicial declaration

Part 8 allows for claimants to seek one or more judicial declarations as an alternative to issuing a claim form.

Part 17: amending a claim

An addition to or substitution of material in relation to a claim which has already been made is permitted under this part, including where the relevant limitation period has already expired, but a new claim cannot be made outside the relevant period of limitation unless it arises out of "the same facts or substantially the same facts" as the preceding claim.

Part 31: disclosure

Part 31 deals with disclosure and inspection of documents. Two types of disclosure are "standard disclosure" and "specific disclosure".

Assessing proportionality

Two approaches to the assessment of proportionality arose in the case of West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, in particular on appeal from the initial trial. The appeal judges referred to a "debate between the parties as to whether a proportionality challenge was limited to the circumstances of the particular case, or whether it was to be assessed by reference to all the circumstances, and so encompass matters which were not necessarily related to the case in question ". On a reading of CPR 44, which contains general rules about costs, it was felt to be clear that "questions of proportionality are to be considered by reference to the specific matters noted in 44.3 and, if relevant, any wider circumstances identified under r. 44.4. Accordingly, the wider interpretation is correct."

Tracks

Small Claims Track

Claims with a value of not more than £10,000 are usually allocated to the Small Claims Track unless: the amount claimed for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity is more than £1,000.00; or the cost of the repairs or other work to residential premises claimed against the landlord by a tenant is estimated to be more than £1,000 – whether or not they are also seeking another remedy – or the financial value of any claim in addition to those repairs is more than £1,000.
A claim for a remedy for harassment or unlawful eviction relating to residential premises will not be allocated to the Small Claims Track even if it meets the financial limits.

Fast Track

Claims with a financial value of no more than £25,000 for which the Small Claims Track is not the normal track are usually allocated to the Fast Track unless: the trial is likely to last for more than one day; oral expert evidence at trial will be in more than two fields; or there will be more than one expert per party in each field.

Multi Track

Any case not allocated to either the Small Claims Track or the Fast Track is allocated to the Multi Track.

Pre-action Protocols

To support the ethos of narrowing the issues prior to the use of proceedings and encapsulate best practice, the CPR introduced "pre-action protocols". They are given force by the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols.

Purpose

Pre-action protocols outline the steps that parties should take in particular types of disputes to seek information from, and to provide information to, each other prior to making a legal claim, with the complainant setting out their claim in full to the defendant and both parties making an attempt to negotiate a settlement. The emphasis is placed on co-operation to identify the main issues. Failure to co-operate may lead to cost penalties, regardless of the eventual outcomes of the case.
Paragraph 1 of the Practice Direction defines the purpose of pre-action protocols as:
  • encouraging the early exchange of all information relating to the prospective legal claim
  • aiding settlement of the claim without the commencement of proceedings
  • producing a foundation for efficient case management where litigation cannot be avoided

    Current pre-action protocols

Penalties

Paragraph 2 indicates that the Court may add terms to any order if it feels a party has breached a protocol. These will place parties in the same position as if the breach had not occurred.
The court may, amongst other remedies, order that the party in breach:
  • pay some or all of the costs of another party
  • pay costs to another party on an indemnity rather than standard basis
  • pay a higher rate of interest on particular damages awarded, or for a particular period.
  • forgo interest on a particular item of damages or for a period.
For instance, where a party commences proceedings prior to supplying important information to the other party then the Court might disallow interest for the period prior to the information being provided.
In addition, the protocol might provide grounds to show a party had or had not behaved so unreasonably as to merit penalty under another Rule.