header-logo header-logo

Civil way: 24 February 2017

24 February 2017
Issue: 7735 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Vanishing claims; legal advisers get judgy; & managing incurred costs.

CPR RULES, OK!

Civil, family and insolvency procedure rules and practice directions are all in for a makeover. Here are some of the sexier changes from the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017 (SI 2017/95) (CPAR 2017) and 88th CPR update which come into force on 6 April 2017, unless stated to the contrary. More next time.

The hearing is nearing The scheme for refund of the whole or part of the trial fee (which we used to call the hearing fee but which I must now call the trial fee and which you may continue to call the hearing fee unless in correspondence with the court or conversation with an anorak) is being scrapped. In return, the fee will not generally become payable until up to 28 days before the trial. The new scheme begins on 6 March 2017 in line with the Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2016 (SI 2016/1191) (see “Civil way”, NLJ , 13 January 2017, p17) but will not affect

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