header-logo header-logo

A treacherous short-cut?

13 June 2013 / Tom Henderson
Issue: 7564 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
istock_000007902260medium

Early determination should be considered, but only if conditions are right, says Tom Henderson

One of the underlying themes of Jackson LJ’s final report, is the call for more forceful case management (Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, December 2009).

The determination of issues at an early stage in litigation by way of a preliminary issues hearing is a common, and sometimes very effective, case management tool. CPR Pt 3.1(2) specifically gives the court the power to determine part of the proceedings separately, by directing the separate trial of preliminary issues. However, a number of decisions in the appellate courts have highlighted failings of preliminary issue trials, which have not had the intended effect. So, what can go wrong in the trial of a preliminary issue? And when should parties and their advisors pursue such early determination?

When deployed correctly, the benefits of a preliminary issues hearing are obvious. Such early determination can decide crucial questions of fact or law, reduce quantum claimed, remove the need for parties to participate

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll