Originally from:
The Practice of International Litigation - 2nd Edition - Looseleaf
The Practice of International Litigation - 2nd Edition - Electronic
Preview Page
Changes in Civil Litigation in England
Lawrence W. Newman and Michael Burrows
Introduction
Sweeping changes to England’s rules of civil procedure, in the form of
the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), came into effect on April 26. The
changes reflect a strong interest in increased efficiency and fairness, and
represent a small step away from a strict adversarial system to one dedicated
to processing disputes quickly and at lower cost. Many of the changes will
have a noticeable effect on English litigation in the future, including, of
course, international litigation involving American or other foreign parties.
Some of the changes will likely make England a more desirable forum for
international litigants having a choice; other changes should be taken into
account as possible factors arguing against litigation in England. Ultimately,
the CPR will likely favor international plaintiffs with strong cases, enabling
them to obtain judgments more swiftly and efficiently than they were
before. For other potential parties, the new Rules might prove to be more
problematic.
The New CPR
England’s new Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) -- also known as the
“Woolf Reforms,” after Lord Woolf, the Master of the Rolls, who advanced
proposals for reforms in his 1995 interim “Access to Justice” report and in
his final report in 1996 -- represent England’s response to perceived
shortcomings in civil litigation in the 1990s. With the overriding objective,
as stated in Rule 1.1, of “enabling the court to deal with cases justly,” the
rules pursue this objective by, so far as is practical, “ensuring that the case is
dealt with expeditiously and fairly and allocating to each case an appropriate
share of the court’s resources, taking into account the need to allot
resources to other cases, ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing
saving expense dealing with the case in ways that are proportionate to the
amounts of money involved, the importance of the case, the complexity of
the issues and the financial positions of each party.”
The new CPR also embody an apparent effort to demystify civil
litigation. New words for key terms in litigation, including “Claimant”
instead of “Plaintiff,” “Statements of Case” in place of “Pleadings,” and
“Witness Summons” instead of “Subpoena,” are only one example of the
CPR’s emphasis on making civil litigation more straightforward and
accessible.
Key Changes
Several measures in the CPR emphasize the administration of justice.
Courts, rather than the parties, are now responsible for case management.
It remains to be seen, however, whether English judges will issue and
enforce strict case management directions. Courts heretofore have
themselves been responsible for delays, by, for example, failing to fix court
dates. The new rules empower judges to set a schedule for proceedings to
which the parties must strictly adhere. Cases are assigned to one of three
tracks after the defendant has answered; cases worth between £5,000 and
$15,000 are normally assigned to the fast track, with a fixed 30-week
timetable to trial, and some fixed costs. Courts are also generally able to
assert control over case administration, insisting that things progress swiftly.
