header-logo header-logo

16 October 2015 / Giles Hutt , Whiston Bristow
Issue: 7672 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

The same but different

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

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
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll