header-logo header-logo

Under pressure

05 August 2016 / Michael Roberts , Giles Hutt
Issue: 7710 / Categories: Features , Environment , CPR
printer mail-detail
nlj_7710_hutt

Will the streamlining of appeal procedure make England and Wales a more or less attractive forum for litigation than it is now, ask Michael Roberts & Giles Hutt

In May 2016 the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) published a consultation paper containing proposals aimed at streamlining the appeal process and reducing the time it takes for cases to reach the Court of Appeal. Responses were called for by 24 June, just five weeks after the consultation opened, and the resulting new rules (CPR Pt 52) were published the following month. They will come into force on 3 October 2016.

Given the importance of the appeal process, it is disappointing that stakeholders were not allowed more time to respond to the CPRC’s proposals, which appeared to have been blessed already by the Court of Appeal at a conference on 11 March 2016. However, the problems they address are serious and urgent: hear-by targets had to be extended in July 2015, and delays are increasing all the time. The proposals were in any case well thought through,

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

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

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