Case management is the court's way of keeping your case on track. Think of it as project management for litigation. Left to their own devices, parties might drag proceedings out for years. The court's role is to actively manage cases to ensure they progress efficiently to a fair conclusion. This is fundamental to modern civil justice.
Good case management ensures disputes are resolved fairly, quickly, and at proportionate cost. It prevents delay, controls costs, and focuses parties on what really matters. For you as a solicitor, understanding case management is essential - your case can succeed or fail based on how well you navigate the court's directions and deadlines.
Every decision you make and every document you file should be viewed through the lens of the overriding objective. Ask yourself: "Does this help resolve the dispute justly and at proportionate cost?" If the answer is no, think twice before proceeding.
The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable: (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing, (b) saving expense, (c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate, (d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly, and (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.
The phrase "dealing justly" is deliberately broad. It's not just about who wins and who loses - it's about the process being fair. This means both sides have a chance to present their case, neither side has an unfair advantage, the procedure isn't excessively expensive, the case moves at a reasonable pace, and court resources are used wisely across all cases.
Proportionality is the cornerstone of the overriding objective. The court must consider: the financial value of the claim, the importance of the case to the parties, the complexity of the issues, and the financial position of each party. A £10,000 dispute shouldn't cost £50,000 to resolve. The procedure should fit the case, not the other way around.
The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it exercises any power given to it by the Rules or interprets any rule. The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective. This includes cooperating with each other and complying with directions and orders.
Failing to help the court further the overriding objective can lead to sanctions. Courts take this duty seriously. If you or your client behaves unreasonably - by delaying proceedings, pursuing unnecessary applications, or failing to comply with directions - you may face costs orders, strike-out, or other sanctions.
The Civil Procedure Rules transformed the court from a passive referee to an active case manager. Judges don't just wait for trial - they intervene early and often to keep cases on track. This is "active case management" and it's why the CPR was introduced in the first place.
The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases. This includes: (a) encouraging the parties to cooperate, (b) identifying the issues early, (c) deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial, (d) deciding the order in which issues should be resolved, (e) encouraging the use of ADR, and (f) helping parties settle the case.
Courts intervene early to identify what really matters in a case. At the first case management conference, the judge will want to know: what are the real issues? What can be agreed? What really needs to be decided at trial? This early focus prevents parties from wasting time and money on peripheral issues.
Case management includes encouraging parties to settle. Judges will often ask at case management conferences whether settlement has been explored and may direct parties to attempt mediation. This isn't about forcing settlement - it's about ensuring parties have properly considered it before committing to trial.
Don't fight case management - embrace it. Use it to focus your case, identify the real issues, and potentially achieve early resolution. Judges appreciate solicitors who understand and support the court's case management role. Be the lawyer who helps, not hinders, the process.
Not all cases are the same, so they shouldn't be treated the same. A £5,000 dispute over a damaged fence doesn't need the same procedure as a £5 million commercial contract dispute. The CPR allocates cases to different "tracks" based on value and complexity, each with its own procedure, timetable, and cost rules.
| Track | Value Range | Trial Length | Procedure | Costs Recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Claims | Up to £10,000 | 1 day max | Simplified, informal | Limited - fixed costs |
| Fast Track | £10,000 - £25,000 | 1 day | Structured, fixed timetable | Fixed costs apply |
| Intermediate Track | £25,000 - £100,000 | 3-5 days | Flexible procedure | Costs budgeting |
| Multi-track | Over £100,000 | 5+ days | Customised per case | Costs budgeting, detailed assessment |
The small claims track is designed for straightforward, low-value cases. The procedure is informal - judges can relax rules about evidence and procedure. But the trade-off is limited costs recovery. Generally, the winner can't recover legal costs from the loser, just fixed costs and court fees. This reflects the policy that for small claims, litigation costs shouldn't exceed the claim value.
For small claims, keep it simple. Don't overspend on legal representation. Focus on the key documents and witnesses. The judge will be more concerned with doing justice than procedural perfection. Consider representing yourself if you're comfortable - that's what the track is designed for.
Fast track is for mid-range cases that need more structure than small claims but aren't complex enough for multi-track. The key feature is the fixed trial timetable - a trial date is set early and everyone works towards it. This encourages parties to prepare efficiently and promotes settlement as trial approaches.
Introduced in 2023, the intermediate track sits between fast track and multi-track. It's for cases £25,000-£100,000 that don't need full multi-track complexity. The procedure is more flexible than fast track but more streamlined than multi-track, offering a "just right" balance for moderately valued cases.
Multi-track is for high-value or complex cases. Here, procedure is tailored to each case's needs. Directions are customised, not standard. Trials can last days or weeks. Costs budgeting applies, requiring parties to set out their anticipated costs. This is serious litigation with full procedural rigour.
Track allocation isn't just about money. The court considers: complexity of issues, number of parties, importance of the case, and whether there are non-monetary elements. A straightforward £200,000 debt claim might be fast-trackable, while a complex £15,000 professional negligence case could need multi-track.
If you disagree with track allocation, you can apply to change it. But do this early - ideally at the first case management conference. Waiting until closer to trial will be met with disapproval. You'll need to show why the current allocation is wrong and how the proposed track better serves the overriding objective.
Directions are the court's instructions for how your case will proceed towards trial. They set out what must be done, by whom, and by when. Think of them as a roadmap from where you are now to the trial door. Compliance with directions is not optional - it's mandatory, and failure can have serious consequences.
Standard directions are model directions that can be applied to appropriate cases. They typically cover: disclosure and inspection of documents, exchange of witness statements, exchange of expert reports (if permitted), filing of trial bundles, and setting a trial window. Courts can use standard directions or tailor directions to the specific case.
Standard directions are pre-written templates that work for most cases. They're efficient and predictable. Tailored directions are customised for the specific needs of a case. Multi-track cases almost always get tailored directions. Fast and intermediate track may use standard directions unless the case has unusual features.
Directions timetables are designed to maintain momentum. Each deadline feeds into the next, pushing the case steadily toward trial. Missing one deadline can create a domino effect, jeopardising the trial date. This is why courts take compliance seriously - a delay by one party affects everyone.
When you receive directions, immediately calendar every deadline. Work backwards from each deadline to plan when work must start. Build in buffers - don't aim to file on the deadline day. If you foresee difficulty meeting a deadline, apply for an extension early, not late. Proactive management beats reactive panic every time.
A Case Management Conference (CMC) is a hearing where the judge and lawyers discuss how the case should proceed towards trial. It's not about the merits of the case - it's about process. How long should disclosure take? Do we need expert evidence? When should trial be? The CMC answers these questions and sets the timetable.
The first CMC is usually soon after the defence is filed. This is where track allocation is confirmed, directions are set, and the trial window is established. Come prepared: know your client's availability for trial, have an idea of what directions you need, and be ready to discuss settlement prospects.
Complex cases may have multiple CMCs as issues evolve or circumstances change. Subsequent CMCs focus on addressing problems that have emerged, refining directions, or dealing with applications. They're typically shorter than the first CMC but equally important for keeping the case on track.
Solicitors must attend CMCs, usually with their clients available by phone. Clients don't typically attend unless the judge specifically requests it, but they should be contactable for decisions. For remote hearings, ensure you have a stable connection and quiet environment - technical glitches don't impress judges.
The CMC is your chance to shape how your case proceeds. Be proactive, not passive. Submit a draft order that reflects what you need. Explain why particular directions are necessary. If you anticipate problems, flag them early. Judges appreciate well-prepared solicitors who make the CMC efficient and productive.
Costs budgeting is the process of agreeing how much each party can spend on the litigation in future costs. It applies to most multi-track cases. Parties file Precedent H forms showing their anticipated costs, and the court approves or reduces those budgets. The idea is to make costs predictable and proportionate.
Costs budgeting generally applies to multi-track cases, with exceptions for certain claim types. It doesn't apply to small claims or most fast track cases. If unsure whether it applies, check CPR 3.12-3.18 or ask at the first CMC. Getting it wrong can be expensive.
Parties exchange costs budgets, then discuss them at the Costs Management Conference (often combined with the first CMC). Each phase of litigation is costed: pre-action, disclosure, witness statements, expert evidence, and trial preparation. The judge reviews and may reduce budgets but won't increase them.
Precedent H is the standard form for setting out your costs budget. It requires detailed breakdowns of costs for each phase, including solicitor and counsel fees, disbursements, and court fees. Completing it accurately is essential - unrealistic budgets may be struck down, while underestimating can leave you unable to recover reasonable costs later.
When preparing your costs budget, be realistic but not conservative. Base it on actual likely costs, not wishful thinking. The court won't increase your budget later if you underestimated, but may reduce it if you're excessive. Consider similar cases as benchmarks. Document your assumptions to justify your figures if challenged.
If you exceed your approved budget without good reason, you may not be able to recover those additional costs from the other side, even if you win. Exceptions exist for significant developments in the litigation, but these require court approval. Budgeting disciplines are real - ignore them at your peril.
Non-compliance means failing to follow court orders or rules. This includes missing deadlines, failing to file documents, not paying costs orders, ignoring directions, or generally obstructing proceedings. Courts take non-compliance seriously because it undermines the entire case management system and delays justice for everyone.
The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. The court may also make orders to remedy the non-compliance, including setting aside proceedings, staying the case, or ordering a party to pay costs.
When faced with non-compliance, the court has options: (1) extend the deadline and require compliance, (2) impose conditions on continuation, (3) strike out part or all of the statement of case, (4) enter judgment, (5) order the party in default to pay costs, or (6) stay proceedings. The choice depends on severity and impact.
Modern civil litigation operates on a culture of compliance. Courts expect parties to meet deadlines and follow orders. The post-Jackson reforms era (2013 onwards) emphasises strict enforcement. Ignoring a deadline is no longer excused with a shrug - it risks serious consequences. This is intentional: compliance is essential for the system to work.
If the other side fails to comply, don't let it slide. Write to them seeking compliance. If that fails, apply to court for relief. The court can't address non-compliance if nobody brings it to its attention. Equally, if YOU'VE breached, act immediately - don't wait for the other side to apply.
Sanctions are the court's way of enforcing compliance. They can be severe: having your statement of case struck out, being debarred from defending, or paying indemnity costs. Some sanctions are automatic (built into the rules), others are at the court's discretion. The prospect of sanctions should motivate compliance.
Unless the court orders otherwise, a sanction for failure to comply with a rule or order will take effect. The court may disapply a sanction where the failure to comply was due to circumstances beyond the party's control. Parties must be aware that sanctions are intended to secure compliance and are not to be seen as optional.
If you've faced a sanction for non-compliance, all is not necessarily lost. CPR 3.9 allows you to apply for relief from sanctions. Success isn't guaranteed - it depends on the circumstances of the breach and your response. The court applies a structured approach to decide whether relief is appropriate.
[2014] EWCA Civ 906
The claimant's solicitor missed a deadline to file a costs budget. The claim was struck out as a sanction. The claimant applied for relief from sanctions. The court had to decide how to apply CPR 3.9 following the Mitchell case.
The Court of Appeal clarified the three-stage test for relief: (1) Identify and assess the seriousness of the breach - trivial, minor, or serious? (2) Why did it happen - good reason or not? (3) Consider all circumstances to decide if relief is appropriate. The emphasis should be on enforcement, not punishment.
Relief from sanctions requires a three-stage approach. Trivial breaches usually get relief quickly. Serious breaches need good explanation. All circumstances are considered, including promptness of the application. The culture is compliance, not permissiveness.
Stage 1: Assess seriousness. Was the breach trivial or significant? Missing a deadline by hours is trivial; missing it by weeks is serious. Stage 2: Explain the breach. Was there a good reason? Illness, IT failure, or overwhelm? Stage 3: All circumstances. Promptness of application, conduct since breach, and impact on proceedings. Relief is more likely if acted quickly.
Timing is crucial for relief applications. Apply as soon as you realise there's been a breach. Waiting weeks suggests non-compliance isn't taken seriously. Prompt applications show respect for the court and the process. Denton emphasises that relief is more likely for those who act quickly to address their breach.
Best advice: avoid breaches altogether. But if one occurs: (1) Act immediately - don't wait to be prompted, (2) Apply for relief promptly, (3) Explain clearly what happened and why, (4) Show remedial steps taken, (5) Offer assurances it won't recur. Courts appreciate honest, prompt attempts to remedy problems.
Beyond case consequences, non-compliance can be expensive. You may face indemnity costs orders, meaning you pay the other side's costs on an indemnity basis - more generous than standard costs. And don't forget your own wasted time dealing with applications. Compliance isn't just about following rules - it's economic good sense.
Case management, the overriding objective, and compliance culture are interconnected. The CPR system works when parties understand that the court actively manages cases to ensure just resolution at proportionate cost. Your role as a solicitor is to work within this system, not fight against it. Master case management and you'll be a more effective advocate for your clients.