Countdown to Woolf - the City view
Part two in a series clarifying the implications of the report
February 17, 1999 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
As of 26 April 1999, under the new Civil Procedure Rules, the court will find itself in the driving seat when it comes to case management – including protocols, allocation, case managing conferences and pre-trail reviews.
In Lord Woolf's own words: "Responsibility for the control of litigation must move from litigants and their advisers to the court."
Tactical use (or misuse) of procedural rules to advance a client's case has become a finely-tuned artform and Woolf's reaction has been radical – from CPR day, the judge will decide how a case will proceed. But there is no need for undue alarm. This has been the norm for years on the continent and in Scotland.
This new judicial case management is one of the principal themes of the CPR. The courts are given a vast latitude to do what they think is appropriate to "deal with a case justly" (see 'overriding objective', Legal Week, 11 February).
They can extend or shorten time limits, require parties and their legal advisers to attend court, stay and strike out proceedings, and, as a catch-all "make an order of [their] own initiative".
Once judges seize the opportunity to direct disputes assigned to them at an early stage in the litigation, litigators will find cases progressing at a pace that may feel uncomfortable, at least initially.
To assist the court in keeping a case moving, the following procedures have been introduced:
Pre-action protocols
Pre-action protocols (PAPs) facilitate effective communication between parties before proceedings are issued, to create an environment which encourages early settlement.
They contain rules on letters before action, early disclosure, selection of experts and settlement.
Track allocation
The allocation of a dispute to a 'track' (eg fast-track), depending on the amount at stake, will take place after service of the statement of case for the defence. It will require both parties to answer questions about the case – including details of witnesses of fact, experts the parties intend to call and an estimate of overall legal costs.
By the system of track allocation, the court will police the principles of proportionality (cost against amount at stake) and efficiency in the conduct of a case.
Case management
conferences (CMCs)
Once a case has been given a track, the court will fix a schedule which, in a multi-track case, will usually provide for a CMC at an early stage.
We expect large commercial cases will require at least one CMC to set a realistic timetable for the rest of the litigation. Inside the Royal Courts of Justice, the CMC will be dealt with by the Masters, and outside by the procedural judges.
During the CMC, the court will review the progress to date, give directions and a timetable or future conduct and ensure that the issues are identified (and agreed) and necessary evidence is gathered.
A legal representative who is familiar with the case and who has authority to deal with issues which may arise must attend the CMC (originally, Lord Woolf had wanted the client to be present as well: this has since been abandoned). Beware the lawyer who sends a trainee without a full briefing. If the CMC has to be adjourned because the representative present does not have authority to agree to a direction, a wasted costs order may well follow.
Pre-trial review (PTR)
As now, a PTR will take place about two months before the trial. The judge will check that the case is on course for trial and that all directions have been complied with.
The legal representative responsible for the matter should attend the PTR. The advocate instructed to appear at the trial may also be required to attend the PTR.
Conclusion
These procedures require judges to regularly monitor progress of cases. This should ensure that litigators are equal to the task of providing a rapid, cost-effective dispute resolution service. The challenge ahead for the profession is to embrace the spirit of the reforms and transform the litigation process into a means to an end – not an end in itself.
Mark Humphries is a partner and solicitor-advocate at Linklaters. Lucy Dillon is head of the litigation information unit and Eleni Pavlopoulos is a solicitor in the litigation department.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMilbank, Wachtell, Ropes and Pittsburgh Duo Aim to Save Nippon Steel's US Steel Merger
Kirkland, Macfarlanes Act as Evelyn Partners Offloads £700M Professional Services Arm
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250