header-logo header-logo

Civil Procedure (Amendment No 4) Rules 2011 SI 2011/3103

10 January 2012
Categories: Legislation
printer mail-detail

Amendments are made to allow for the centralisation of the issue of money claims and further administrative functions up to, but not including, the hearing stage...

Commencement date
19 March 2012

Legislation Affected

SI 1998/3132 amended


Summary

Amends the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 as follows:

(a) Amendments are made to allow for the centralisation of the issue of money claims and further administrative functions up to, but not including, the hearing stage. Money claims will be processed at the County Court Money Claim Centre in Salford and issued in the name of Northampton County Court. The Centre will also handle requests for judgment, defences and allocation questionnaires. Cases will be transferred out to the appropriate county court if judicial intervention is required and, if and when a hearing is required. Centralisation of these administrative functions will give effect to the Government’s commitment to provide an efficient and effective justice system, whilst reducing delays in the hearing and determination of cases; eliminating

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll