Legal Practice Notes

This Practice Note outlines the factors to consider when seeking additional security for costs after circumstances have altered since the initial security was ordered. It forms part of a series of Practice Notes addressing security for costs under CPR 25. The other Practice Notes are listed in Security for costs—overview. On 6 April 2025, amendments to CPR 25 came into force, renumbering the former CPR 25 provisions and adjusting some of the wording of its security for costs provisions. This Practice Note refers to the earlier rule 25 as ‘old rule 25’ and, where relevant, draws attention to any differences between the current CPR 25 and the old rule 25. The old rule 25 can be accessed here: Relevance of the judgment under which the previous security for costs was ordered When deciding whether to order further security for costs, the court will consider prior court...

Ad hoc arbitration An ad hoc arbitration is any arbitral process where the parties have not chosen an institution to manage it. This gives parties latitude over how the arbitration is run, but provides less outside assistance throughout the process. It can be faster than institutional arbitration, though not if the parties encounter problems constituting or running the tribunal at any stage. Many parties and their lawyers are accustomed to this and do not believe an institution would bring benefit to their arbitrations. Arbitration clauses can be revised once a dispute has arisen, or even after an arbitration has begun, to take the proceedings out of institutional hands and have them proceed on an ad hoc footing instead, should they so choose. Without an institution supervising tribunal appointments under its rules, the parties may nominate an appointing authority in case their...

Recovering the costs of a detailed assessment Following a detailed assessment, the receiving party is entitled to recover the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings ( CPR 47.20(1)) as a general rule. There are, however, two clear exceptions: where any Act, any of the rules in the CPR, or any relevant practice direction provides otherwise; or where the court makes some other order. Any such variation may apply to all, or only a proportion, of the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings. When addressing the question of costs connected with the detailed assessment, the court will typically summarily assess those costs at the conclusion of the proceedings in question ( CPR 47.20(5)). In some cases, costs may nonetheless be incurred after the detailed assessment has concluded. The issue of whether such later costs are recoverable was considered in Bloomsbury Law Solicitors v Macpherson (2017), an appeal heard by Warby J...

This Practice Note reviews the application of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements by contracting states to the convention. It sets out the parties to the convention, as well as those states that have signed the convention but have not yet ratified it. It also outlines how the convention operates for contracting states. For guidance on further elements of the convention, see the following Practice Notes: Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (jurisdiction and enforcement)— Brexit considerations Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—scope Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—jurisdiction Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements—enforcement Definitions This Practice Note uses a number of definitions: Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements— HCCH Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 at The Hague EU( W) A 2018— European Union (...

This Practice Note sets out the scope of the 'without prejudice rule' governing the admissibility of material generated by bona fide settlement discussions. It clarifies when spoken and written communications are protected by, or fall outside, this head of privilege. It considers if pre-action exchanges may attract 'without prejudice' status, the significance of explicitly marking correspondence 'without prejudice', and how the principle applies across a chain of documents. It outlines the recognised exceptions that can render 'without prejudice' material admissible, including circumstances where extracts are deployed to cherry-pick the narrative, illustrated by examples, together with the notion of waiving 'without prejudice' privilege. The treatment of 'without prejudice' communications in the context of mediations is addressed, as are Calderbank offers marked 'without prejudice save as to costs'. Without prejudice rule The policy is that communications between disputing parties containing admissions or statements made on a...

Case, citation and News Analysis This Practice Note collates costs decisions in which the court has imposed a wasted costs order. The judgments below illustrate circumstances where such orders were made. The newest ruling appears first. Minh v Da Guang Tankers ( Private) Ltd [2026] EWHC 793 ( Admlty) Factual background In collision proceedings, the claimant’s solicitors stated they were instructed by both the claimant and his hull insurers, PVI. It was later established they lacked authority from PVI, although the court found they did hold authority from the claimant himself. Judgment The Admiralty Court held that the solicitors’ admitted absence of authority from PVI amounted to a breach of warranty of authority and also merited a wasted costs order. The court determined that the representation that insurers stood behind the claim materially influenced the defendants’ decisions, causing them and their Club to accept English...

This Practice Note examines what a wasted costs order is and the court’s power to make such an order. It also considers the relevant test and the principles the court will apply in such cases. For information on making an application for a wasted costs order, and the practical points to consider, see Practice Note: —application. What is a wasted costs order? A wasted costs order is described in CPR PD 46, para 5.1 as an order of the following type: requiring a legal representative to pay a sum in respect of a party’s costs, the amount either specified by the court or left to be assessed; or disallowing costs connected to a specified sum or particular items of work. Such orders are not available to satisfy a disgruntled party who has been unable to obtain an effective costs order; ie they are not a back-door device to...

Read this Practice Note together with the Practice Notes on Civil restraint orders, Limited civil restraint orders, Extended civil restraint orders and General civil restraint orders. What is a civil proceedings order and when will a court order one? Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 ( SCA 1981) empowers the court to limit vexatious litigation when specified criteria are met. If a person repeatedly brings unmeritorious claims and/or court applications against the same or different parties, the Attorney General, acting in the public interest, may seek an order under SCA 1981, s 42 that stops a vexatious litigant from starting further civil proceedings without the leave of the High Court. This is termed a ‘civil proceedings order’ ( CPO). Under SCA 1981, s 42, the High Court can also make a ‘criminal proceedings order’ or an ‘all proceedings order’. As the names...

This Practice Note outlines the position on costs budgeting from 1 October 2020. It explains why the phrase ‘significant developments’ is key when seeking to vary a costs budget and what the phrase is intended to capture. It also refers to examples, drawn from judgments, of changes the court has regarded as significant developments. Why are ‘significant developments’ important? A costs budget can only be changed if there have been ‘significant developments’ that justify the alteration. This is provided for in CPR 3.15A(1): ‘ A party (“the revising party”) must revise its budgeted costs upwards or downwards if significant developments in the litigation warrant such revisions.’ It is important to recognise that where significant developments affect a party’s costs budget, that party (the revising party) must revise the budget, whether the figures go up or down. What is meant by ‘significant...

What is unjust enrichment and when is it used? A claim in unjust enrichment aims to strip from a recipient the benefits derived at another’s expense and return them to the blameless party. It is sometimes labelled ‘restitution’ or a ‘restitutionary claim’, although, strictly, restitution describes the remedy, while unjust enrichment is the underlying cause of action. The overlap in terminology stems from the fact that the unified concept of unjust enrichment emerged from claims that had long been treated as restitutionary. Contemporary unjust enrichment doctrine has evolved through centuries of jurisprudence; its core tenets were articulated by scholars and later endorsed by the highest courts. That historical lineage explains much of the present confusion about labels and categories. In this respect the subject is unusual, because instead of the principles being exhaustively set out in legislation and/or case law, a...

Practice Note This Practice Note is intended to guide the identification of the applicable law before the courts of England and Wales in relation to events that cause damage, where those events took place on or after 1 January 2021. Where a dispute raises a conflict of laws between different parts of the UK, or between the UK and Gibraltar, UK Rome II applies if the harmful event occurred on or after 11 January 2009. For occurrences falling outside these dates, the UK courts will apply a different applicable law regime, determined by the date of the event. For an overview of the various regimes and how they interrelate, see Practice Note: Applicable law regimes. This Practice Note refers to UK Rome II, Regulation ( EC) 864/2007. UK Rome II reproduces the full text and recitals of Regulation ( EC) 864/2007 (as...

Numerous businesses and public bodies, including HMRC, have faced exposure to or loss of confidential information, as well as other confidentiality failings, yet such events are not always widely publicised given the potential harm to an organisation’s reputation. Duties of confidence may arise by implication—for example, the duty of good faith (often called fidelity) inherent in employment contracts—be set out expressly, such as in a confidentiality agreement, or be imposed through regulation and statute, for instance the client confidentiality obligations on financial services and health professionals. A confidentiality breach can therefore infringe several overlapping legal duties. This Practice Note complements the related Practice Note, How to manage a personal data breach, which reflects guidance from the UK data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office, addressing loss of personal data within the data protection regime, which may, or may not, also be...

This Practice Note provides guidance on pursuing a ‘ UK GDPR claim’. It does so by referring to the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( UK GDPR), as revised by the Data ( Use and Access) Act 2025 ( DUAA 2025), together with the Data Protection Act 2018 ( DPA 2018). Matters falling within the EU are governed by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( EU GDPR). UK data protection rules—most notably Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679, UK GDPR—originate largely from EEA regimes and consequently rest on comparable foundations, albeit with some granular divergences. In the UK, “assimilated law” denotes retained EU law ( REUL) that continued post‑2023, including the UK GDPR. Re‑labelling REUL (and related expressions) as assimilated law signalled an alteration in its standing and handling under UK law, meaning it is...

Practice Note This Practice Note sets out leading judgments of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court under the law of England and Wales, handed down since 2012, concerning compensation claims by data subjects for breaches of one or more of the following UK data protection laws: the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( UK GDPR), together with related provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 ( DPA 2018) Assimilated law is the label given to retained EU law ( REUL) that remains in force after the end of 2023, such as the UK GDPR. The re-categorisation of REUL (and associated terms) as assimilated law marks a change in its status and treatment under UK law, in that it is generally to be interpreted according to ordinary domestic law and principles. From 1 January 2024, REUL is...

This Practice Note outlines the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ( CRA 2015). The CRA 2015 sets out consumer rights and remedies for goods, digital content and services, and overhauled the law on unfair terms in consumer contracts. It explores the Act’s aims, key definitions, controls on limiting or excluding liability, and the framework for assessing unfair terms in consumer contracts set out within it. It also briefly addresses the reform of enforcement powers, the expansion of civil remedies, and consumer collective actions for anti-competitive behaviour under the CRA 2015, alongside provisions relating to letting agents and secondary ticketing. Background to the CRA 2015 The CRA 2015 received Royal Assent on 26 March 2015 and marked a major overhaul and rationalisation of consumer law in the UK. In particular, it covers consumer rights and remedies for the sale of goods and the supply of services and...

Applications in the Technology and Construction Court Where your case proceeds in the Technology and Construction Court ( TCC), the TCC Guide governs any application you pursue, and its provisions will apply to every application you make. This Practice Note sets out guidance on applications in the TCC, with cross‑references to the relevant parts of the TCC Guide and their corresponding provisions. It concentrates on the step‑by‑step process of making an application in the TCC, spanning pre‑application considerations through to serving the issued application. For guidance on preparing for an application hearing after issue of the application, see Practice Note: Preparing for an application hearing in the Technology and Construction Court ( TCC). The following general points should be noted: The TCC Guide also offers practical information on proceedings in the TCC, but it is not a replacement for the CPR and must be read in...

This Practice Note offers guidance on statements of truth under CPR 22 and CPR PD 22. It clarifies what a statement of truth is, identifies which documents must be verified by one and sets out the standard wording. It also explains who may sign the statement of truth (including solicitors, and scenarios involving multiple parties or group litigation), addresses the use of electronic signatures (referred to in CPR 5.3 as signatures ‘printed by computer or other mechanical means’), and highlights the repercussions of either failing to sign or making a false statement of truth, including the risk of contempt of court. Depending on the court handling your matter, you may need to consider additional requirements—see: Court specific guidance. Amendments to CPR 22 and CPR PD 22—1 October 2023 CPR 22 and CPR PD 22 are revised with effect from 1 October 2023—see: LNB News...

This Practice Note sets out guidance on standstill agreements (also known as tolling agreements) used either to pause the running of limitation or to push out the limitation period. It clarifies the distinction between these forms of standstill and points to relevant Precedents. For broader guidance on limitation, see Practice Note: Limitation Act 1980—general application. Suspending or extending limitation—what is the difference and why is it important? There is a key difference between pausing time for a defined window and lengthening the limitation period to a particular date. Although both mechanisms aim to halt limitation from accruing, where time is suspended the remaining part of the limitation period at the date of the agreement will ordinarily start again once the suspension finishes. By contrast, where an extension is agreed, the limitation will usually expire on the date the extension ends. That date will normally fall after the...

This Practice Note examines the duty of care expected of solicitors and barristers in professional negligence actions, whether arising in contract or tort. It takes as its foundation the general principles governing all professionals, as set out in Practice Note: Standard of care in professional negligence claims, and then turns to examples specific to the legal sector. As that Practice Note explains, reliance on a responsible body of professional opinion is not commonly applicable to claims brought against solicitors and barristers. This may reflect the courts’ readiness to reach their own judgment on matters of legal practice ( Edward Wong Finance v Johnson Stokes; Patel v Daybells). Solicitors and barristers—expected standard of care (general principles and illustrative examples) The standard for solicitors and barristers is one of ‘reasonable skill and care’, consistent with Bolam v Friern Hospital. Put differently, the question is what a...

This Practice Note offers guidance on interpreting and applying the relevant CPR provisions. Depending on the court in which your case is progressing, you should also be alert to any additional provisions (see further below). This Practice Note addresses stakeholder applications where an individual under a liability to two or more parties may apply under CPR 86 for directions as to which party should receive payment or delivery of goods or assets. CPR 86 took effect on 6 April 2014, replacing the former RSC and CCR rules, though pre-6 April 2014 case law may still assist in construing the new provisions. Where a stakeholder faces such competing claims, they may apply to the court under CPR 86.2 for a direction indicating to whom they ought to pay a debt or money, or to whom any goods or chattels should be...