Legal Practice Notes

This Practice Note identifies the matters that must be borne in mind when dealing with litigants in person ( LIP) within case management, such as relief from sanctions, defects in service, insufficient pleadings, and amendments to statements of case. It should be read alongside: Court's case management powers—overview, Compliance and relief from sanctions—overview, and Practice Note: Drafting statements of case. It explains how the relevant provisions of the CPR ought to be interpreted and applied. Depending on the court in which the proceedings are taking place, additional requirements may apply—see: Court specific guidance. For more on litigants in person, see: Parties and their representatives—overview. Case management generally In broad terms, the CPR and other judicial guidance apply to litigants in person just as they do to parties with legal representation. The fact that a party is unrepresented will not, in the ordinary course, justify...

This Practice Note employs a hypothetical case study to illustrate both the substantive law and the procedural issues that may arise when bringing and overseeing an artificial intelligence ( AI) related claim in the courts of England and Wales. For related guidance, consult the following: Practice Note: AI related civil liability—risks and mitigation (on types of civil litigation claim that may arise in AI scenarios) Practice Note: Issues in managing artificial intelligence related civil claims (on procedural issues that may arise in conducting an AI-related dispute) Artificial intelligence for dispute resolution lawyers—overview (general guidance on AI for dispute resolution lawyers) Practice Note: Artificial intelligence ( AI) resource kit (general guidance on AI across all legal practice areas) Note On 15 January 2026, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce ( UKJT) launched a consultation on its draft ‘ Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms under the private law of England Wales’. The...

This Practice Note highlights key points when drafting and making a ‘without prejudice’ offer, ensuring any document recording it is not admissible in a court or tribunal. What is without prejudice? As relevant evidence on an issue for a court or tribunal, written communications or records of conversations between parties to a dispute are admissible in evidence. Under the law of England and Wales, parties may, in defined circumstances, stop oral statements or written communications that contain an offer, concession or admission against their interest being admitted in evidence. If protection applies, such statements or documents cannot be shown to the court or tribunal. This is known as the ‘without prejudice’ rule, which has exceptions, some listed in Exceptions to without prejudice protection. The rule is not a blanket exclusion; assessed objectively, it depends on: a dispute existing between the parties to the...

This Practice Note outlines the principal points to weigh up when you are advising a client after an issue or the prospect of a dispute has emerged in the running of a joint venture. Here, the joint venture ( JV) has been set up through a private limited company, namely the joint venture company ( JVC). It should be considered alongside Practice Note: Corporate joint venture dispute—dealing with deadlock: initial considerations. For broader direction on handling a threatened dispute in the JV arena, also refer to Practice Note: Joint venture disputes—how to respond. Joint venture company disputes—initial considerations Whichever form is chosen to create the JV relationship, the joint venture agreement ( JVA) sits at the heart of that relationship, defining each party’s duties to the other and providing obligations they may enforce against one another. Plainly, the JVA is a contract between the parties and,...

ARCHIVED This archived Tracker helps determine whether a state is a signatory to the Lugano Convention 2007 and if it has taken effect in that state. The EU has refused the UK’s request to accede to the convention in its own capacity. It is not updated and is provided purely for background. For fuller guidance on the extent to which the Lugano Convention 2007 will, after IP completion day (ie 31 December 2020, at 11 pm) and notwithstanding the EU’s rejection of the UK’s accession, still be applied by the courts of England and Wales, as well as by the courts of the remaining contracting states in matters involving a UK element, see the following Practice Notes: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners [ Archived]— Jurisdiction Lugano Convention 2007—application to the UK post IP completion day...

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note reviews the provisions set out in the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Lugano on 30 October 2007 (the Lugano Convention 2007), that address special and exclusive jurisdiction. The analysis addresses how these provisions function across civil and commercial disputes. It covers: Article 5, which concerns, among other matters, claims in contract and in tort, and related issues; Article 6, which relates to situations involving multiple defendants, the involvement of third parties, or the bringing of counterclaims. It further assesses the various categories of claims encompassed by Article 22, under which the courts of a contracting state exercise exclusive jurisdiction in specified matters. Lastly, it considers the implications for applying Article 22—which operates...

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated or maintained. The majority of authorities cited here were determined under the 2007 Lugano Convention in particular. That said, where decisions—whether from Member State courts or the Court of Justice—under Brussels I or Brussels I (recast) are also pertinent because the provisions are identical or closely analogous, you are directed to the equivalent Brussels regime Practice Notes, which ought to be read together and in parallel with this document. For advice on the extent to which Court of Justice judgments are binding on UK courts following the UK’s departure from the EU, consult the Q& A: Are UK courts and tribunals bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union post- Brexit?......

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note reviews the general provisions of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Lugano on 30 October 2007 (the Lugano Convention 2007). It examines the consequences of a jurisdiction agreement under Article 23, and then outlines the conditions for a valid jurisdiction agreement under Article 23. It then specifically addresses the requirement for the agreement to be in writing or evidenced in writing, together with situations where the jurisdiction agreement is in a form that aligns with the parties’ established practices, or is in a form that accords with a widely recognised usage. The Practice Note considers exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements, and what parties must establish when seeking to rely on a jurisdiction agreement....

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The majority of authorities cited in this Practice Note were determined expressly under the Lugano Convention 2007. Nevertheless, where jurisprudence (from EU Member State courts or the Court of Justice) delivered under Brussels I or Brussels I (recast) is pertinent because the provisions match or are materially alike, cross-references are provided, where appropriate, to the equivalent Brussels regime Practice Notes, which ought to be read alongside this note and considered in tandem. For assistance on whether rulings of the Court of Justice bind UK courts after the UK’s exit from the EU, see Q& A: Are UK courts and tribunals bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union post- Brexit?......

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. It reviews how the UK’s exit from the EU affects the operation of the Lugano Convention 2007 when determining jurisdictional disputes. From a UK standpoint, the position is governed by domestic legislation, which includes transitional provisions. It also considers the consequences of the UK becoming a third state for the convention—the UK’s participation in the Lugano Convention 2007 arose from EU membership. The contracting parties are the EU, Denmark and the relevant EFTA States, namely Iceland, Norway and Switzerland... For guidance on the position during the implementation period, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—jurisdiction [ Archived]. For further relevant guidance on the effect of the UK’s departure from the EU when dealing with matters of jurisdiction, see: Brexit post implementation...

A wide range of examinations into various facets of litigation funding, together with ideas for its reform, have been undertaken. Only some, though certainly not all, have culminated in legislation. This Practice Note presents an overview of the differing proposals and the implementing measures that have brought them into effect. Civil Justice Council—review of third party civil litigation funding In the Spring of 2024 the Lord Chancellor asked the Civil Justice Council ( CJC) to carry out a review of third party civil litigation funding. Final report The CJC issued its final report on 2 June 2025. The report put forward a package of reforms to litigation funding, including: legislation to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR, designed to operate both retrospectively and prospectively......

Although every litigation funding agreement ( LFA) and its related papers differ by the funder and the nuances of the claim being financed, certain core matters must be dealt with through distinct stages of negotiation. This Practice Note forms part of a concise series from Tanya Lansky and Tets Ishikawa, Managing Directors at Lion Fish Group Ltd, designed to equip participants negotiating or evaluating LFAs and their ancillary documents with a clearer grasp of key dynamics. It highlights the considerations at play for practitioners across negotiation phases. Emphasis rests on identifying issues common to most LFAs despite case-specific features and differing funder approaches. Adverse costs risks for funders Solicitors invariably warn clients about potential exposure to adverse costs should litigation ultimately fail. The emergence of the after-the-event insurance ( ATE) market offered claimants a means to hedge these hazards where an insurer...

While every litigation funding agreement ( LFA) and its related documents will differ according to the funder and the specificities and nuances of the funded matter, there are core issues that must be addressed during the various stages of negotiation and documentation. This Practice Note forms part of a short series by Tanya Lansky and Tets Ishikawa, Managing Directors of Lion Fish Group Ltd, designed to equip those negotiating or evaluating LFAs and their accompanying papers with a clearer understanding of the factors at play. Representations and warranties A lengthy representations and warranties ( R& W) provision can appear onerous and, at first glance, disproportionate. However, in any commercial contract its breadth typically correlates with the complexity of the underlying investment; and because litigation is, by nature, complex, comprehensive R& W are ultimately unavoidable. Conversely, the more burdensome the R& W regime, the more limited the level of...

Although every litigation funding agreement ( LFA) and the papers that sit alongside it will differ by funder and by the nuances of the case supported, there are core points that must be dealt with throughout the stages of negotiation, at each phase and juncture. This Practice Note forms part of a concise series by Tanya Lansky and Tets Ishikawa, Managing Directors of Lion Fish Group Ltd, intended to equip those closely negotiating or assessing LFAs and their companion documents with a clearer grasp of the dynamics at play in practice. Termination clauses Termination clauses are, by design, severe; that severity is inherent, as they represent an ultimate fallback that compels the funder to crystallise losses which instantly depress performance—whether measured at a fund level for those who manage funds, or on a P& L basis for principal investors. Consequently, a funder will not look to invoke a...

This Practice Note on cryptoassets (a type of digital asset) for dispute resolution lawyers outlines what cryptoassets are and why litigators must understand how they function and where they feature in their cases—namely, the kinds of claims that may arise (currently involving chiefly cryptocurrencies), whether forming the crux of the dispute or appearing within the surrounding factual matrix. See: Cryptoassets for dispute resolution lawyers—overview for recognition of the broader range of digital assets (such as non-fungible tokens ( NFTs) and digital securities) to which comparable issues apply regarding the status of such assets under English law as to the creation, protection and enforcement of rights, particularly given their intangible quality, the novel technologies in which they are created/exist and the largely international (and thus seemingly fluid) character commonly associated with them. Note that this is a developing area of law; see Practice Note:...

This Practice Note examines the relevant provisions and authorities on cost management and budgeting in matters involving litigants in person ( LIPs), specifically: how CPR 3 and CPR PD 3D operate in proceedings with LIPs the obligations in CPR 3.1A(2) and the impact of the overriding objective exceptions to filing a costs budget or a budget discussion report ( Precedent R) points to address when varying or agreeing budgets where an LIP is involved It also refers to guidance issued by the Law Society, CILEx and the Bar Council on handling LIP cases and costs. Cost management The overriding objective requires the court, so far as practicable, to place the parties on an equal footing ( CPR 1.1(2)(a)); in disputes featuring an LIP, effective cost management is a key means of achieving that. In multi-track civil litigation, a formal costs...

This Practice Note outlines the core principles for working out limitation periods set by the Limitation Act 1980 ( LA 1980). Key steps From a claimant’s standpoint, limitation reviews are commonly triggered by variations of these questions: when does the limitation period come to an end? what is the last date for issuing the claim at court? To address these points, you must first carefully identify: every potential defendant, and each viable cause of action arising from the facts of your dispute For guidance and links to materials to help with this process, see: Starting a claim or counterclaim—overview. From a defendant’s perspective, you may need to consider whether, or when, a claim is statute-barred and the scope for advancing a limitation defence. The same steps apply when advising on limitation......

The following core Dispute Resolution resources—offering practical commentary, legislation, rules and guidance for disputes practitioners in private practice or in-house—are available on Lexis+® UK. They are cited and linked within the Dispute Resolution content on Lexis+® UK. Please note that access to the listed works requires the relevant Lexis+® UK subscription(s). Civil procedure Civil Court Practice ( The Green Book) A foremost commentary on civil court practice, encompassing all pre-action protocols, Court Guides, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 with Practice Directions, and authoritative guidance on practice and procedure in specialist jurisdictions. Claims and remedies—key substantive guidance in a commercial disputes context Negligence: Buckley - The Law of Negligence and Nuisance ( Common Law Series) A detailed analysis of negligence and nuisance, informed by case law and judicial pronouncements. Damages: The Law of Damages ( Common Law Series) A thorough analysis of the law of...

Costs insurance This Practice Note examines costs insurance, also known as legal expense insurance ( LEI), which protects an insured individual against the risk of an adverse costs order in litigation. The principal forms are: before the event insurance ( BTE insurance) after the event insurance ( ATE insurance) This Practice Note should be read alongside Practice Note: Recovery of costs insurance premiums. Insurance is a complex field and is subject to regulatory requirements. It is crucial to understand those requirements, as non-compliance could lead a court to conclude that the policy is unenforceable, which in turn may restrict costs recovery. See further: Insurance contracts—overview and Regulated activities—overview. LEI policies are regulated by the Insurance Companies ( Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, SI 1990/1159. LEI insurance involves paying a premium for the cover, and that cover will be subject to an excess that is not...

Main remedies in Scottish landlord and tenant disputes The principal remedies available in the context of landlord and tenant disputes in Scotland are: Interdict Specific implement Payment action Damages action Rescission Retention of rent Irritancy Hypothec Action for recovery of heritable property Interdict Interdict is a court remedy used to restrain an actual or threatened breach of contract by a party; for example, a landlord may seek it to stop a tenant using the premises for a purpose other than that for which it is let. It is the counterpart of the English remedy of injunction. An interdict can be obtained in the Court of Session (by petition or summons, see: Introduction: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia [88]) or in the sheriff court (by initial writ, see: Form of writ: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia [382]). If brought in the sheriff court,...