header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 December 2020 / Charles Kimmins KC , Andrew Dinsmore
Issue: 7913 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

CPR Pt 81: the new contempt of court roadmap

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll