header-logo header-logo

03 February 2021
Issue: 7919 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Reforms to CPR on the way

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published details of a cluster of reforms to the Civil Procedure Rules, including changes on vulnerable witnesses, evidence and offers to settle.

The changes, introduced under the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021, come into force on 6 April 2021.

They clarify that ‘following inconsistencies in case law’, and particularly for litigants in person, an offer to settle (a Part 36 offer) can include accruals of interest but ‘where it is silent on this point, the presumption will be that the offer is inclusive of all interest’, according to the announcement.

On vulnerable witnesses, the reforms clarify that dealing with a case justly includes ensuring that the parties can participate fully, and that parties and witnesses can give their best evidence. It deals with the costs provision for additional work or expense incurred due to the vulnerability of a party or witness. This implements the February 2020 recommendations of the Civil Justice Council, in its report ‘Vulnerable witnesses and parties’, which called for rule changes to ensure all civil judges, parties and advocates consider the vulnerability of people involved in civil proceedings.

Currently, the rules prevent collateral use of witness statements outside the proceedings in which they are served. The reforms extend this rule to affidavits as well as witness statements. This implements the decision in Official Receiver v Skeene [2020] EWHC 1252 (Ch), where the court gave guidance on whether there is an implied undertaking that affidavits filed in previous proceedings will not be disclosed without the court’s permission.

Another amendment clarifies that foreign judgments not requiring registration in order to be enforceable are to be treated, for enforcement purposes, as if they were judgments of the High Court or county court. These will include judgments from EU member states for an extended period, as a result of provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement. 

Issue: 7919 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll