header-logo header-logo

CPR Pt 81: the new contempt of court roadmap

03 December 2020 / Charles Kimmins KC , Andrew Dinsmore
Issue: 7913 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
33613
Charles Kimmins QC & Andrew Dinsmore provide an overview of the changes to the contempt of court procedure ushered in by the new CPR Pt 81
  • The new CPR Pt 81 has overhauled the procedure for contempt of court for all applications on foot or commenced after 1 October 2020.
  • CPR Pt 81 does not change the substantive law in relation to jurisdiction for contempt of court.

The procedures for contempt of court applications were overhauled by the new CPR Pt 81 on 1 October 2020, which revoked the old CPR Pt 81 without any transitional measures pursuant to Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2020, (SI 2020/747), rules 1, 3 and 15. The latter states: ‘For Part 81 substitute Part 81 as set out in the Schedule to these Rules’. The Schedule contains the new CPR Pt 81 without reference to the old rules.

The UK explanatory notes state that: ‘The new Part 81 reduces the number of rules from

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