Civil Procedure Rules

Verified Timeline

Lore & Background

In 1994, the Lord Chancellor instructed the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf, to report on options to consolidate the existing rules of civil procedure. On 16 June 1995, Lord Woolf published an interim report on Access to Justice, which was the subject of extensive academic commentary. American law professor Richard Marcus Jr. pointed out that the interim report was clearly inspired by the experience of the US federal courts with case management, which grew out of their experience with managing complex litigation. During the 1960s, a massive antitrust scandal in the American electrical equipment industry had led to the enactment of a multidistrict litigation statute in 1968 and the creation of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In 1969, the panel published the Manual on Complex Litigation, which proposed that American judges should take a more active role in the management and development of complex cases during the pretrial phase of litigation. This recommendation touched off the case management movement of the 1970s and 1980s in American courts. On 26 July 1996, Lord Woolf published his final Access to Justice Report 1996, identifying principles the civil justice system should meet to ensure access to justice. The report was accompanied by draft rules of practice that granted wide management powers to the court, proposed that cases be allocated to one of three tracks depending on their nature, and introduced the concept of proportionality to the costs regime. The Civil Procedure Act 1997 was enacted on 27 February 1997, conferring the power to make civil procedure rules and establishing the Civil Justice Council. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) were made on 10 December 1998 and came into force on 26 April 1999.

Reader's Guide

The Civil Procedure Rules represent a fundamental shift in English civil justice, moving from a party-controlled system to one with active judicial case management. Their overriding objective, stated in Part 1, guides both the application of specific provisions and behavior where no specific rule applies. The rules introduced three tracks—Small Claims Track (claims up to £10,000, increased on 1 April 2013), Fast Track (claims up to £25,000, or £15,000 for claims issued before 6 April 2009), and Multi-Track (any case not allocated to the other tracks)—based on case value and complexity, and emphasized proportionality in costs. Key provisions include Part 3.1, granting courts power to extend or shorten time limits; Part 6 on service of documents, including personal service to an individual or to a person holding a senior position within a company; Part 7 on service of claim forms within four months (six months if served outside the jurisdiction); Part 8 allowing claimants to seek judicial declarations as an alternative to issuing a claim form; Part 17 on amending claims, including after the limitation period if the new claim arises out of the same or substantially the same facts; Part 31 on disclosure, including standard and specific disclosure; and Part 40 on judgments and orders, including the court's discretion to set off sums on a claim and counterclaim. The case of West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust (2019) clarified that proportionality assessment under CPR 44 follows a wider interpretation, considering all circumstances. The rules also introduced pre-action protocols, given force by the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, outlining steps parties should take before making a legal claim.

Did You Know?

• The CPR replaced older legal terms with plain English equivalents, such as 'claimant' for 'plaintiff' and 'witness summons' for 'subpoena'.
• The Civil Procedure Act 1997 was enacted on 27 February 1997, and the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) were made on 10 December 1998, coming into force on 26 April 1999.
• Lord Woolf's interim report on Access to Justice was published on 16 June 1995, and his final report was published on 26 July 1996.
• The Small Claims Track limit was increased to £10,000 on 1 April 2013.
• In the case of West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust (2019), the appeal judges confirmed that the wider interpretation of proportionality under CPR 44 is correct.