header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 August 2016 / Michael Roberts , Giles Hutt
Issue: 7710 / Categories: Features , Environment , CPR
printer mail-detail

Under pressure

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll