Legal Practice Notes

For direction from the Senior Court Costs Office ( SCCO) on how detailed assessment hearings are to be conducted within that court, refer to Practice Note: SCCO guidance for detailed assessment from 1 August 2020. That Practice Note outlines matters to bear in mind when handling a detailed assessment within the SCCO. It covers making a request for a hearing and the ramifications of not doing so. It explains what occurs after the request is filed up to the hearing itself, including any potential applications that may arise during that period. As regards the hearing, it addresses who may speak to the court and in what capacity. It also considers how privileged documents are to be treated. The Practice Note should be read alongside: Request for detailed assessment—checklist and Practice Note: Costs and...

This Practice Note explores the relationship between costs budgeting and detailed assessment, with particular emphasis on CPR 3.18, which sets out how the court will approach standard basis assessments in cases where a Costs Management Order ( CMO) has been made and where one has not been made. For matters in which a CMO exists, three core considerations are identified: the significance of the most recent approved or agreed costs budget; whether there is ‘a good reason’ to deviate from the figure allowed at the costs management hearing; and the relevance of any court observations regarding incurred costs. What is costs budgeting and detailed assessment Detailed assessment pre-dated the introduction of costs budgeting. When budgeting was brought in, no specific guidance clarified how the two should interrelate, and the authorities were inconsistent. Accordingly, care is needed when relying on earlier...

ARCHIVED : This archived Practice Note distils a number of key and/or illustrative rulings concerning derivative claims, with a particular emphasis on judgments from June 2019 through to June 2025 inclusive. It aims to offer, in outline, a broad appreciation of the varied factual situations and issues that may arise in such claims, with a specific emphasis on decisions from 1 June 2019 onwards. It is not kept up to date and is provided purely for background information only. For further guidance on derivative claims, see the following Practice Notes: Derivative claim—what it is and when to use it Statutory derivative claim—the procedure Common law derivative claim—the procedure Case details and analysis Judgment date Case summary Chancery Division Chimbganda v Kundodyiwa ( Re Derivative Claim - Goodpeople Health Care Ltd) [2025] EWHC 1543 ( Ch) 19 June 2025 A noteworthy ruling where permission to pursue a statutory derivative claim was granted...

This Practice Note reviews the Pre- Action Protocol governing Professional Negligence claims that is currently in force and now in effect. Note that proceedings issued in the Business and Property Courts on or after 1 October 2015 may fall within, or be amenable to, either the Shorter Trials Scheme or the Flexible Trials Scheme, as appropriate. For more information, see the following Practice Notes: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note explores issues defendants may encounter when defending professional negligence claims whilst remaining compliant with the Pre- Action Protocol for Professional Negligence claims (the ' Protocol'), and addresses practical considerations. Also see: Professional negligence claims—defendant steps—checklist. For guidance for claimants in this respect, see the following: Practice Note: Professional negligence claims—pre-action protocol—claimant issues Professional negligence...

A claim can be started under: CPR 7—for further guidance, see Practice Notes: Claim form—the contents, Claim form—filing and issuing, and Drafting the particulars of claim CPR 8—for further guidance, see Practice Note: CPR Part 8 claims (alternative procedure for claims) Action following service of a claim In most cases, prior to commencing proceedings, the parties will have engaged with a pre-action protocol or traded pre-action correspondence, which will have provided the defendant with an opportunity to consider and prepare a response to the claim. For further guidance, see: Pre-action: general—overview. If that has not occurred, receipt of a claim form may catch the defendant unawares and compel it to address several issues promptly. This is the usual position in practice......

This Practice Note outlines examples of how a defendant may voluntarily accept the English court’s jurisdiction. It further considers whether there is submission where the court has required the defendant to act. For guidance on assessing if a party has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Challenging court jurisdiction—has a party submitted to a jurisdiction? Service of the defence A defendant who serves a defence in the proceedings will ordinarily be treated as having submitted to the English court’s jurisdiction. An exception arises where the court orders the defendant to serve their defence. Compliance with that order is not treated as submission and so does not prevent the defendant from advancing a jurisdictional challenge. The authorities on this point were reviewed by the Court of Appeal in Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (2015). In Ablynx NV v Vhsquared (2019), the...

ARCHIVED This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. For the current position, see Practice Note: Obtaining default judgment—general principles— Conditions for a default judgment—the relevant time for filing has expired. A persistent issue for practitioners and the judiciary is whether default judgment can be entered where the acknowledgment of service or the defence is submitted late, yet arrives before the court determines the request/application for default judgment. There is, for now, no definitive resolution, although that will alter on 6 April 2020. Changes to CPR 12.3—6 April 2020 The meaning of CPR 12.3 has been clarified, with the amendments coming into force on 6 April 2020. These changes appear in the Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2020, SI 2020/82, r 3. The effect is that where an acknowledgment of service or a defence is filed before a judgment in default is entered, this will prevent the court from...

This Practice Note has been placed in archive and is retained for reference only. The defamation costs pilot scheme concluded on 31 March 2013. For guidance on costs budgeting, see: Costs budgeting and costs management—overview. What is it? The Scheme obliges participants in defamation actions (that is, actions involving allegations of libel, slander and/or malicious falsehood) to supply the court with a granular projection of forthcoming base costs (' Costs Budget'). Parties must keep these Costs Budgets updated routinely, after which the court will either sanction or decline them. In practice, they set the benchmark for future costs recovery, and the court will not deviate from an approved Costs Budget save for good reason. The Scheme’s purpose is to ensure the court holds sufficient costs information to manage the case so that the parties are on an equal footing and that the costs they incur are...

This Practice Note on deceit claims sets out the elements required to pursue the common law tort of deceit: a false representation, an intention to deceive, reliance, and resulting loss. Deceit arises where a party knowingly makes a misrepresentation to defraud another, and that conduct causes loss to the victim. For further guidance on pursuing deceit claims, see: Deceit claims—pleading and standard of proof Remedies in deceit claims Deceit claim—what is it? Deceit occurs where a misrepresentation is made with the intention of cheating a party, and that intention later results in loss to that party. The common law tort of deceit is separate from, though closely aligned with, a claim in misrepresentation; see Practice Note: Deceit claims—pleading and standard of proof. Illustration— Connolly v Bellway Homes—property transaction In Connolly v Bellway Homes, the seller of development land secured damages from the buyer after relying on the...

This Practice Note provides an overview of the UK’s Data Protection Act 2018 ( DPA 2018). For a broader primer on data protection law in the UK, see Practice Note: Data protection law—new starter guide. The UK data protection law collection brings together wider guidance and is a suggested first port of call for research. In brief In summary, the DPA 2018 currently governs: the processing of personal data within the UK GDPR framework, complementing the core rules laid down in the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( UK GDPR), with extra measures covering: lawful basis for processing processing on the basis of relevant international law processing special categories of personal data and criminal offence data ...

What are damages? ‘ Damages’ denotes a monetary award made by a court to make good a claimant’s loss or harm arising from a wrong for which the defendant is answerable. It is a remedy rooted in the common law, though the court may, in appropriate cases, also grant equitable damages. They differ from remedies for unjust enrichment, which address an unjust benefit obtained by the defendant regardless of wrongdoing. Accordingly, other money claims are distinct from damages, for example: repayment of sums paid by mistake; recovery where consideration has failed; or the reasonable value of goods supplied or services rendered (for these categories of claim and remedy, see subtopic: Unjust enrichment and restitution). Assessing damages As observed by the Supreme Court in Sainsbury’s v Visa Europe when assessing damages for breach of competition law: applying the compensatory principle, the court must steer between...

This Practice Note monitors statements, reports, consultations and similar materials on dispute resolution issues relating to cryptoassets (cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens ( NFTs)), smart contracts and digital securities, including the status of these assets under English law. For broader guidance on cryptoassets and their relevance to a dispute resolution practitioner’s work, see: Practice Note: Cryptoassets for Dispute Resolution lawyers Practice Note: Cryptoassets for Dispute Resolution lawyers—key and illustrative cases Issues in cryptoasset related civil claims—checklist Report Key date: 19 March 2026 Details: The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce’s ( UKJT’s) Control Panel issued its Report on Control of Digital Assets, explaining how control operates in practice. Framed as an “explanatory guide”, it aids judges and legal practitioners when applying the law “as a matter of fact to various and evolving technologies” (para 18). For further information and the report link, see LNB News...

This Practice Note outlines the concept of ‘cryptoassets’, being assets created and managed via distributed ledger technology. It sets out how such assets are handled in real-world contexts and highlights the challenges encountered by Private Client practitioners within this developing landscape. What is a blockchain? In essence, a blockchain is a digital ledger that records transactions in time order and is ‘distributed’ across countless computers (or ‘nodes’) worldwide. Its distinguishing characteristic, when contrasted with traditional ledgers, is decentralisation: no single central body maintains it. A blockchain’s primary role is to provide a way to store and move data on a decentralised platform. At its most straightforward, it enables X to pass an asset to Y, with that movement noted on a single public (ie distributed) ledger. The identities of X and Y are not captured on the chain; instead, they remain...

This Practice Note on crypto and digital assets sets out: the shared features of cryptoassets, their emergence via the Bitcoin White Paper, how cryptography functions, the difference between public and private keys, nodes and mining (including proof of work and proof of stake), an outline of blockchain, categories of digital asset, how crypto exchanges typically operate, and the developing landscape of regulatory duties. It offers a quick-access primer for dispute resolution lawyers dealing with civil disputes concerning crypto and digital assets. For guidance on why cryptoassets matter to dispute resolution lawyers and the kinds of claim that may arise, see Practice Note: Cryptoassets for Dispute Resolution lawyers. Workable definitions of 'digital asset' and 'cryptoasset' The terms 'digital asset' and 'cryptoasset' are frequently used as synonyms. For this Practice Note, which considers digital assets from a legal...

Note that, from 1 December 2022, the 152nd PD update officially re-labelled CPR PD 3E (costs management) as CPR PD 3D, aligning with cross-referencing changes introduced by the Civil Procedure ( Amendment No 2) Rules 2022, SI 2022/783, and the 149th PD update, both of which state that CPR PD 3E is retitled CPR PD 3D. Until the guides are revised, any reference in court guides to CPR PD 3E should be understood as a reference to CPR PD 3D. This Practice Note charts a route to the costs management provisions contained in the following court guides: Commercial Court guide, Chancery guide, guide to the Financial List, Circuit Commercial ( Mercantile) Court guide, Patents Court guide, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court guide, guide to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Small Claims Track, King’s Bench guide, Senior Courts Costs Office guide and the...

This Practice Note highlights points to address when arranging service of documents outside the jurisdiction in disputes where the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear the matter under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is an international convention applied in cross-border cases to settle questions of jurisdiction and enforcement in civil and commercial matters. A prerequisite is that the parties have agreed an exclusive jurisdiction clause, ie an exclusive choice of court agreement. For guidance on the convention itself, see Practice Notes: Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—scope and Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—jurisdiction. The convention is in force only for a limited number of countries. For which states, see: Tracker— Hague Convention on Choice of Courts...

This Practice Note addresses how to serve documents from England and Wales on a defendant whose domicile is within an EU Member State. It sets out the principal issues arising when service is to be effected out of the jurisdiction. Summary of the issues to be considered When effecting service outside the jurisdiction in an EU Member State, the following points should be considered carefully: whether the parties have a contractual arrangement for service within the jurisdiction. For guidance, see: Contractually agreed method of service below whether leave is needed to serve out of the jurisdiction. For guidance, see: Is the court’s permission required? below the steps necessary to effect service of documents. For guidance, see: The process required to effect service of documents below practical points. For guidance, see: Practical considerations when serving under the Hague Service Convention...

ARCHIVED This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. It assesses the rules on service that applied between the UK’s departure from the EU on 31 January 2020 and the end of the implementation period on 31 December 2020, which the EU refers to as the transition period. It examines whether the implementation period could be extended, whether Regulation ( EC) 1393/2007 (the Service Regulation) governed service during that timeframe, and ways to minimise uncertainty by employing process server clauses. For a swift Brexit reference tool answering key questions and providing useful updates, research tips and materials, see: Brexit Bulletin—key updates, research tips and resources. Definitions This Practice Note uses the following definitions: European Union ( Withdrawal) Act 2018— EU( W) A 2018 European Union ( Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020— EU( WA) A 2020 exit day—defined in EU( W) A 2018, s 20, as 31 January...

This Practice Note explores cross-border service and claims involving digital assets, including cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens ( NFTs). The law and procedural framework for disputes concerning digital assets remain relatively nascent and are continually developing. In relation to service, the topic is currently under consultation by the Law Commission, with new—and at times inconsistent—authorities emerging. It is therefore essential to be familiar with the present position when seeking to serve a claim form in proceedings that involve digital assets. What are digital assets? There is no settled definition of a ‘digital asset’. However, the Property ( Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, which took effect on 2 December 2025, confirms that something digital or electronic in nature can amount to property: ‘ A thing (including a thing that is digital or electronic in nature) is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely...

This Practice Note explores cost considerations that may arise in cross-border proceedings. Security for costs In litigation, the ordinary approach to costs is that the party who loses will be directed to pay the other side’s recoverable costs by the court. These liabilities can be sizeable, particularly where a claim has a foreign element that produces additional expenditure, for example travel, expert evidence on law, and similar items. A defendant might be confident about resisting the claim, yet still harbour concerns about the practical difficulties of recovering the costs allowed by any costs order made against the claimant. A security for costs order, an interim remedy, aims to reduce that risk by requiring the claimant to lodge money with the court, or provide another form of security, as a condition of being permitted to continue with the proceedings. As a general rule, the case is not stayed while such...