header-logo header-logo

05 June 2026
Issue: 8164 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Civil way , Damages , Liability
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Civil procedure’s quiet rule changes

A series of procedural developments could have significant practical consequences for litigators. Writing in NLJ this week, columnist Stephen Gold highlights important updates ranging from digital court reforms to family procedure and admissions of liability

Among the headline changes are expanded capabilities within the Damages Claims Portal, allowing certain non-monetary claims to be handled digitally, and revisions to standard family orders under the supervision of Mr Justice Peel.

Gold also examines a High Court ruling confirming that pre-action admissions made before October 2023 may still require court permission to withdraw. In Industrial Maintenance Engineers v Webster Miller, an insurer's statement that 'liability is accepted' proved decisive, binding the defendant despite later insurance complications.

Meanwhile, defendants in credit hire disputes are warned to draft debarring orders carefully after Motor Insurers Bureau v Houston clarified the limits of restrictions relating to impecuniosity evidence. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll