header-logo header-logo

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

Civil way: 24 February 2017

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

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Firm adds former Simmons Simmons patent head to engineering and tech team

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

Freeths strengthens its voice in national disputes with ACTAPS committee appointment

Pillsbury—Matthew Sperry

Pillsbury—Matthew Sperry

Pillsbury expands private client and family office platform with Cadwalader partner hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll