header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 October 2015 / Giles Hutt , Whiston Bristow
Issue: 7672 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

The same but different

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7672_hutt

Whiston Bristow & Giles Hutt review the Shorter & Flexible Trials Pilot Schemes currently running in the High Court

On 1 October 2015 the Shorter Trials and the Flexible Trials Pilot Schemes were launched in the Rolls Building of London’s High Court. Despite their names, these two distinct schemes cover court proceedings as a whole, not just the trial. The overarching purpose of each is to give parties to commercial disputes the opportunity to secure a decision more quickly and cheaply than would otherwise be the case.

In the Shorter Trials Scheme (STS) key features of multi-track procedure are either truncated or discarded altogether, eg costs management. In the Flexible Trials Scheme (FTS) the parties have greater freedom to tailor the procedure for their claim (subject to the court’s approval). Overall, the schemes are informed by similar objectives, which include encouraging parties and the court to focus on discrete issues and—at trial—keeping oral evidence and submissions to a minimum. Having said that, the schemes differ from each other in important ways. (Unless otherwise stated, references

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll