Legal Practice Notes

This Practice Note on multiple tortfeasors examines liability where a tortious claim involves more than one defendant or prospective defendant. It considers the same damage, same act (joint tortfeasor) concept, when directors may incur liability, accessory liability and knowledge in tort, and practical aspects of pleading such claims or preparing an agreement to settle them. For guidance on wider multi-party liability issues, see the following Practice Notes: Vicarious liability and multi-party torts Joint, several, and joint and several liability Contribution claims under Civil Liability ( Contribution) Act 1978 Settling disputes—claims involving three or more parties Multiple tortfeasors—the different categories of tortfeasor Where more than one tortfeasor (a party responsible for a tort) is involved, they may fall into these categories: joint tortfeasors: the parties answer for the same damage arising from the same tortious act several...

CPR PD 5C (the CE- File electronic filing and case management system) took effect on 1 October 2025 and sets out the procedure for using CE- File in the Senior Courts Costs Office. Paragraph 1.5 of the Senior Courts Costs Office Guide explains electronic filing in that office and provides a link to the HMCTS e-filing service, which users must log in to in order to file documents electronically with the court. This Practice Note also signposts the Senior Costs Judge’s October 2019 Electronic Working in the Senior Courts Costs Office Practice Note. Although that document refers to CPR PD 51O, which has been revoked, much of the practical guidance remains relevant and useful to practitioners... Mandatory use of CE- Filing in the Costs Office—legally represented parties CE- File applies to the Senior Courts Costs Office ( CPR PD 5C, para 1.3(d)). A legally...

The duty of care In Donoghue v Stevenson, a woman fell ill after drinking ginger beer bought by a friend that contained a dead snail. In a landmark decision, the House of Lords held that manufacturers owe consumers a duty to take reasonable care to avoid harm. This principle is not restricted to consumers of products; the broader rules of negligence apply, and a claimant must also establish that a breach of duty caused their damage. When considering whether a defendant exercised reasonable care, the court will examine the circumstances, including: the likelihood of injury occurring the seriousness of the injury whether the danger was concealed or obvious relevant safety standards the benefits of the product the cost of reducing or eliminating the risk The court balances these factors and determines what constitutes reasonable care in the specific context. As a...

This Practice Note sets out how to interpret and apply the pertinent provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your case is currently progressing, you should also take account of any further provisions—see: Court specific guidance. In particular, note that substantial parts of CPR 29 and CPR PD 29 (which concern multi-track case management and are cited in this Practice Note) do not operate in the Commercial Court (see CPR 58.13 and CPR PD 58, para 10.1), Circuit Commercial Courts (see CPR 59.11 and CPR PD 59, para 7.1) and the Technology and Construction Court (see CPR 60.6 and CPR PD 60, para 10). For details on case management in both the Commercial Court and the Technology and Construction Court, consult the following listed Practice Notes: Commercial Court— Commercial Court—case management Technology and Construction Court— TCC—case...

This Practice Note explores the nature and scope of an expert witness’s duties when preparing to give, and giving, evidence within their expertise, by reference to the Civil Procedure Rules and case law. It addresses the expert’s overriding obligation to the court and considers what may follow if an expert does not fulfil those duties. Key principles for experts CPR 35.3 states that an expert must assist the court on issues within their expertise, and that this obligation overrides any duty owed to the instructing party. The most commonly cited account of an expert’s responsibilities is found in the judgment of Cresswell J in National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co (the Ikarian Reefer) [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 68 (not reported by Lexis Nexis®): expert evidence should be, and be seen to be, the expert’s independent product,...

This Practice Note explains when and by what means a Part 36 offer may be varied. It also identifies the ramifications of variation and supplies practical illustrations. CPR 36.9 and CPR 36.10 specify the occasions and mechanisms by which a Part 36 offer can be changed, together with the consequences of taking that course under the rules. Why vary a Part 36 offer? An offeror might be inclined to keep a Part 36 offer in the background for possible acceptance, poised to inflict adverse consequences if it is not accepted and then beaten at trial. Yet that approach—or lack of a considered approach—can prove expensive. This is especially true where the litigation develops in a way that increases the chance the offeree will accept at a point when the terms no longer suit the offeror. Accordingly, Part 36 offer(s) should be tracked carefully and kept under...

Practice Note This Practice Note explores the principles of costs recovery for money claims under Section II of CPR 45 when seeking costs after a summary judgment application. It addresses the claimant’s position, including whether the fixed costs regime in CPR 45 applies, if it can be disapplied, and the consequences where the claimant withdraws a summary judgment application. It also considers the defendant’s position when it successfully opposes summary judgment, offering guidance on the prospect of indemnity costs and the implications for costs budgeting. Note that this Practice Note relates to money claims under Section II of CPR 45. The current CPR 45.16(2) was previously rule 45.1(2)—both the present and former rules provide that fixed costs apply where the only claim is for a ‘specified sum of money’ and ‘summary judgment is given under Part 24’. For fixed costs money claims issued before 1...

This Practice Note outlines how to obtain an order for assessment and the steps to follow if one is made, including the necessary documents and evidence, the assessment hearing, and who bears the assessment costs. The provisions governing the assessment of solicitors’ costs are in CPR 46 and CPR PD 46 at para 6.1 onwards. Throughout, the Solicitors Act 1974 is abbreviated to SA 1974. For further information on: a client’s entitlement to seek an assessment—see Practice Note: Solicitor and client costs—rights to an assessment the High Court’s power to require a solicitor to deliver a bill of costs ( SA 1974, s 68)—see Practice Note: Solicitor and client costs—applications for delivery the features required of a statute bill—see Practice Note: Solicitor and client costs—statute bills the basis applied on a solicitor–client assessment—see Practice Note: Solicitor and client costs—basis of...

Note On 6 April 2025, changes to CPR 25 took effect, re-numbering the former CPR 25 provisions and revising some of the wording of its provisions on security for costs. This Practice Note labels the previous rule 25 as ‘old rule 25’ and, where relevant, points out any distinctions between the current CPR 25 and the old rule 25, where applicable and appropriate. As regards the conditions to be satisfied before the court is able to make a security for costs order, CPR 25.13 has been re-numbered as CPR 25.27 and certain elements of it have been altered. The old rule 25 can be accessed here: This Practice Note sets out what is required for making an application for security for costs and the conditions that need to be satisfied under CPR 27.13. This Practice Note forms part of a series that considers issues...

Applications in the King’s Bench Division If your case is before the King’s Bench Division ( KBD), the provisions of the King’s Bench Guide apply to any application you pursue. This Practice Note gives guidance on applications in the KBD, cross‑referring to the relevant sections of the King’s Bench Guide. Its focus is preparation for an application hearing in the KBD, particularly the documents that must be ready in advance, and the method and timing for lodging them with the court. For guidance on other aspects of the KBD applications process, see these Practice Notes: Making an application in the King’s Bench Division ( KBD) Determination of applications in the King’s Bench Division ( KBD) The following general points should be noted: The King’s Bench Guide provides practical detail on KBD procedure but does not replace the CPR and must be read in...

A restricted group of individuals who were, in some respect, reliant on the deceased (ie dependants) may pursue a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 ( FAA 1976). See Practice Note: Law Reform Act or Fatal Accidents Act? Where a death stems from negligence that would have entitled the injured person to seek and recover damages, the party who would have been liable had the death not occurred remains fully liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the injured person. When proceedings are issued for the benefit of dependants, a new cause of action arises; however, success is conditional on showing that the deceased would have recovered damages if they were still alive. Only one claim can be advanced on behalf of all dependants, collectively and together. Awards, other than for bereavement, when made, are apportioned between the relevant...

This Practice Note outlines the reasons, timing and process by which an offeror may withdraw a Part 36 offer. It also indicates when permission is necessary, the correct destination for any application, and the impact of withdrawing a Part 36 offer. Why withdraw a Part 36 offer? As set out below, once a Part 36 offer is withdrawn, the automatic Part 36 costs consequences do not apply ( CPR 36.17(7)(a)). At times, an offeror might opt to leave a Part 36 offer sitting open, hoping the offeree overlooks it and that, if the dispute reaches trial, the outcome betters that offer. There is, however, a tangible risk to that tactic. The offeree may not have forgotten the offer and could accept it unexpectedly, particularly if developments in the case mean its original terms are no longer favourable (or as favourable) to the offeror. Moreover, where a clear and...

The duty of care Healthcare practitioners owe their patients a duty of care. That obligation, arising in the course of their care, requires the exercise of reasonable care to: obtain a full and adequate medical history thoroughly explore the patient’s symptoms and concerns formulate appropriate and reasonable differential diagnoses arrange referrals to relevant specialists where required take action to pursue all reasonable measures to safeguard the patient’s health deliver a reasonable and proportionate course of treatment follow up with the patient afterwards where that is reasonably necessary For guidance on identifying the proper defendant in a clinical negligence claim, see Practice Note: Identifying the correct defendant in clinical negligence claims. The duty is not confined to medical practitioners alone; it may extend further. Non-clinical staff Employees within a healthcare organisation or facility may owe a direct duty to...

Background The Access to Justice Act 1999 ( AJA 1999) created the Legal Services Commission ( LSC), which replaced the Legal Aid Board with effect from 1 April 2000. The Act also introduced the Community Legal Service ( CLS). It set out that legal service providers (for clinical negligence, solicitors) who were members of the CLS could, subject to eligibility criteria, obtain public funding for clients in civil matters, except those excluded by AJA 1999, Sch 2. Under AJA 1999, Sch 2, CLS funding was not to be awarded in respect of allegations of negligently caused injury, death or damage to property. Critically, allegations concerning clinical negligence were left out of this restriction. Accordingly, provided the eligibility tests were satisfied, a clinical negligence claim could still secure public funding after 1 April 2000. Thus, after 1 April 2000, clinical negligence matters continued to fall within scope of...

This Practice Note outlines the main formats an offer to settle a dispute may take, including open offer letters, Calderbank (without prejudice save as to costs) ( WPSAC) letters and Part 36 offers; it assesses their respective pros and cons, the implications for costs exposure, and how to draft these offer letters. For wider guidance on without prejudice communications, including Calderbank ( WPSAC) letters, see Practice Notes: Without prejudice communications, Without prejudice explained and Without prejudice—exceptions to protection from admissibility... Although this Practice Note only summarises the core features of Part 36 settlement offers, comprehensive guidance on making, receiving, varying, accepting and rejecting a Part 36 offer, together with detailed precedents, is available at: Part 36 offers—overview... For advice on making an offer or recording a settlement, and on drafting settlement agreements, see Practice Notes: • Settling disputes—how to document a settlement • Settling...

What are ‘premises’? Although the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 ( OLA 1957) regulates the liability of those who occupy or control premises, the statute does not define the term. The expression is to be interpreted very widely and embraces: any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft; this covers both permanent and temporary structures such as scaffolding and ladders. In Furmedge v Chester- Le- Street District Council a company that installed a large inflatable sculpture was found liable when high winds tore it from its moorings land itself (so the owner of a park, field or garden falls within OLA 1957) railway lines airport runways ( Monarch Airlines v London Luton Airport [1998] Lloyd's Rep 403, [1997] CLC 698 (not reported by Lexis Nexis®)) harbour waters When will a potential claimant be a ‘lawful...

This Practice Note explores why experts meet and the range of possible approaches available in practice. It clarifies the standing of expert-to-expert discussions and any joint statement, and examines how far any consensus between experts may bind the parties to the litigation. It offers guidance on reading and applying the pertinent CPR provisions, and on how they should be understood in context and applied appropriately. For further provisions, see the Court specific guidance below. Expert witnesses and those instructing them are expected to comply with the following: the Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims ('the Guidance') Practice Direction Pre- Action Conduct and Protocols, para 7 Conventional directions for experts’ meetings and joint statements The court may require an exchange of experts’ initial reports and, frequently under CPR 35.12, will order a subsequent, without prejudice, joint discussion between the experts in each...

This Practice Note explains the differences between the assessment of costs on the standard basis compared to the indemnity basis. It further addresses costs payable under a contract, noting that the court does not have to assess those sums ( CPR PD 44, para 7.1). Guidance is also included on the selection of legal representatives and how that choice influences the reasonableness of the costs claimed. When attempting to recover expenditure arising in the proceedings, the recoverable sum will usually be lower than the total actually incurred. Where the parties cannot reach agreement, the court will frequently carry out an assessment. For direction on the available assessment routes, see: Summary assessment—overview Practice Note: Provisional assessment Detailed assessment—overview Note that costs are only recoverable to the extent they do not breach the indemnity principle; see Practice Note: Costs and the indemnity...

Rome II (transitional) Use this Practice Note to identify the applicable law before the courts of England and Wales for harmful events that took place between 11 January 2009 and 31 December 2020. It applies to events giving rise to damage within that period. Where matters occurred outside those dates, the UK courts will apply a different applicable law regime. For other dates, an alternative conflicts framework will instead be used there. The governing regime turns on the date of the precipitating event. For guidance on the various regimes and how they relate, see Practice Note: Applicable law regimes. This Practice Note addresses Regulation ( EC) 864/2007 on the law governing non-contractual obligations, Rome II (transitional). In identifying the applicable law, Article 4(1) sets the default rule. However, a different system will apply if a derogation under Articles 4(2) or 4(3) is...

This Practice Note outlines when and how an offeree may ask for clarification of a Part 36 offer, as well as the potential consequences if the offeror refuses to clarify... When to seek clarification of a Part 36 offer Before deciding whether to accept a Part 36 offer, the offeree may need its terms clarified. CPR 36.8 sets out the process by which an offeree can request clarification... Instances where the offeree might seek clarification of a Part 36 offer include where: they do not fully understand what is being proposed, eg the offer is inelegantly drafted the offer is unclear or capable of more than one reading the offer is defective, ie it does not strictly comply with Part 36, eg it fails to state a relevant period of at least 21 days Note: in Seeff v Ho, the court...