Case management - The overriding objective

Learning Outcomes

This article outlines the court's duty to manage cases proactively in civil litigation, guided by the overriding objective set out in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). For the SQE1 assessment, you will need to understand the components of the overriding objective, including the principle of proportionality, and how these principles inform the court's active case management powers. You will also need to appreciate the connection between case management, track allocation (including the intermediate track introduced in 2023), costs management (costs budgets and fixed recoverable costs), and the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance, together with the approach to applications for relief. Competence also requires familiarity with the court’s general case management powers (CPR 3.1), the use of technology and Early Neutral Evaluation, the role of pre-action conduct and ADR in furthering the overriding objective, and the special considerations when at least one party is unrepresented.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the court's approach to case management and the fundamental principles that underpin it, appreciating how the overriding objective shapes judicial decision-making throughout the litigation process, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The overriding objective (CPR 1.1) and its components (dealing justly, proportionality, etc.).
• The court's duty of active case management (CPR 1.4) and the specific powers involved, including key case management powers in CPR 3.1 (e.g. varying time limits, consolidation, separate trials, Early Neutral Evaluation).
• The relationship between case management, track allocation (small claims, fast, intermediate, and multi-track) and costs regimes, including fixed recoverable costs and costs budgeting.
• The court's power to impose sanctions for non-compliance with rules, practice directions, and orders (e.g. strike out, unless orders) and the availability of extensions by written agreement where permitted.
• The principles governing applications for relief from sanctions (CPR 3.9) and the three-stage approach to relief.
• How the overriding objective interacts with pre-action conduct, ADR, directions questionnaires, and directions.
• The court’s approach to litigants in person when setting and managing directions.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which part of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the overriding objective?
   1. Part 1
   2. Part 3
   3. Part 26
   4. Part 44
2. Which of the following is NOT explicitly listed as a component of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost under CPR 1.1(2)?
   1. Saving expense.
   2. Ensuring the parties are on an equal footing.
   3. Guaranteeeing the claimant's success.
   4. Dealing with the case expeditiously and fairly.
3. Active case management under CPR 1.4 includes which of the following court duties?
   1. Identifying the issues at an early stage.
   2. Fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case.
   3. Encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure if appropriate.
   4. All of the above.

Introduction

Central to the philosophy of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) is the concept of active case management by the court. This represents a shift from the previous system where parties largely controlled the pace of litigation. The court now has a duty to manage cases proactively to ensure proceedings are conducted efficiently and fairly. This active management is guided by the overriding objective, set out in CPR Part 1. Understanding the overriding objective and the court's case management powers is essential for effectively managing civil litigation and anticipating judicial approaches in practice and in the SQE1 exam.

The modern case management framework was shaped by the Woolf Reforms (leading to the CPR in 1999), reinforced by the Jackson costs reforms (2013) which emphasised proportionality and costs control, and further refined by subsequent reviews such as Briggs (2016) which encouraged digitisation and efficiency. The Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols also embeds early cooperation and ADR, reflecting the same aims.

Key Term: Overriding Objective
The fundamental principle set out in CPR 1.1, which requires the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. It guides the court's interpretation of the rules and exercise of its case management powers.

THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE: CPR 1.1

CPR 1.1(1) states: "These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost."

CPR 1.1(2) elaborates on what dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable:

• (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing; This involves preventing procedural inequality and includes appropriate accommodation for litigants in person, as well as sensible directions to avoid one side using resources to oppress the other.
• (b) saving expense; The court must consider cost-saving options such as limiting issues and evidence, sequencing steps efficiently, and using fixed recoverable costs where applicable.
• (c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate; This is a key principle. Proportionality is judged in relation to:
  • (i) the amount of money involved;
  • (ii) the importance of the case;
  • (iii) the complexity of the issues; and
  • (iv) the financial position of each party.
    Costs and court resources must bear a reasonable relationship to these factors.
• (d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; Timetables must be realistic, enforced, and designed to secure a fair process without unnecessary delay. Expedition should not override fairness.
• (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; Listing, hearing lengths, and directions are controlled with regard to the broader demands on the system; the court will generally avoid adjournments that jeopardise trial dates.
• (f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. Compliance is a core expectation. Where default occurs, sanctions may follow, including unless orders, debarring orders, and striking out a statement of case. Relief from sanctions is available but not automatic.

Key Term: Proportionality
A central concept within the overriding objective, requiring that the resources expended (in terms of costs and court time) are reasonable in relation to the value, importance, and complexity of the claim.

The overriding objective influences every aspect of civil procedure, from pre-action conduct to trial and enforcement. Parties and their legal representatives are also under a duty (CPR 1.3) to help the court further the overriding objective. This duty requires cooperation in completing directions questionnaires, engaging with ADR where appropriate, agreeing directions where possible, and confining evidence to what is necessary.

ACTIVE CASE MANAGEMENT: CPR 1.4

CPR 1.4 imposes a duty on the court to actively manage cases to further the overriding objective. This active management includes:

• (a) encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings;
• (b) identifying the issues at an early stage;
• (c) deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others;
• (d) deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved;
• (e) encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure if the court considers that appropriate and promoting the use of such procedure;
• (f) helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the case;
• (g) fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case;
• (h) considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify the cost of taking it;
• (i) dealing with as many aspects of the case as it can on the same occasion;
• (j) dealing with the case without the parties needing to attend at court;
• (k) making use of technology; and
• (l) giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently.

In practice, CPR 3.1 provides a non-exhaustive catalogue of general case management powers. The court may, among other things, extend or shorten time limits (even after expiry), adjourn or bring forward hearings, consolidate proceedings, order separate trials of issues, stay proceedings, give directions for remote or hybrid hearings, require parties or representatives to attend, and direct Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) to aid settlement. The court may also control evidence, including limiting expert evidence or ordering a single joint expert where appropriate.

Key Term: Case Management
The process by which the court actively manages the progression of a case, including setting timetables, giving directions, controlling evidence and costs, and encouraging settlement, to ensure the overriding objective is met.

Key Term: Directions
Orders made by the court instructing the parties on the steps they must take to prepare the case for trial, including deadlines for disclosure, exchange of witness statements, and expert reports.

Key Term: Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)
A judge-led evaluation of the merits on a non-binding basis at an early stage to assist parties in settlement discussions. It is a case management tool that can save time and costs when proportionate.

When one or more parties are unrepresented, the court will take that into account when setting directions and at hearings. While neutrality is maintained, judges may use an inquisitorial approach to ensure the real issues are addressed efficiently, for example by clarifying what evidence a witness may give or what a party must do to comply with directions.

Key Term: Unless Order
A case management order that specifies a step to be taken by a fixed date and provides that, unless the step is taken, a stated sanction will automatically apply (e.g. “Unless the defendant serves its witness statements by [date], the defendant is debarred from calling factual evidence at trial”).

The court also weighs cost-benefit when deciding applications. A step that is realistic, targeted at live issues, and proportionate in cost is more likely to be approved. Conversely, wide-ranging disclosure, duplicative expert evidence, or multiple interim applications on minor points may be refused or limited to protect proportionate cost.

Worked Example 1.1

A claimant in a complex commercial dispute valued at £500,000 wishes to rely on evidence from five expert witnesses. The defendant argues this is excessive and disproportionate. What factors will the court consider when deciding whether to permit the expert evidence?

Answer:
The court will apply the overriding objective, particularly the principle of proportionality (CPR 1.1(2)(c)). It will consider the value of the claim (£500,000), the complexity of the issues requiring expert evidence, the importance of the case, and the potential cost of involving five experts relative to these factors. The court must also consider whether the evidence is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings (CPR 35.1) and may limit the number of experts or the issues they can address (CPR 1.4(2)(l), CPR 35.4). The court might direct that a single joint expert be used for some issues to save expense (CPR 1.4(2)(e), CPR 35.7).

RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER RULES

The court's duty of active case management forms the basis of many other parts of the CPR. It pervades pre-action conduct, allocation, disclosure, evidence, interim applications, costs, and appeals.

Track Allocation (CPR Part 26)

Allocating cases to the appropriate track is a fundamental tool of proportionality and resource stewardship. Historically, the CPR provided three tracks (small claims, fast track, and multi-track). From 1 October 2023, an intermediate track was introduced to deal with claims of moderate complexity and value.

• Small claims track remains the normal track for claims not exceeding £10,000 (with specific lower thresholds for some personal injury heads). This track is informal, generally with limited recoverable costs.
• Fast track usually covers straightforward claims over £10,000 up to £25,000, with trials not exceeding one day and limited expert evidence.
• Intermediate track typically applies to claims over £25,000 and up to £100,000 of moderate complexity, with trial length up to three days and complexity bands guiding directions and costs recovery.
• Multi-track is reserved for claims not suitable for the small, fast, or intermediate tracks (e.g. higher value, complexity, or significant expert and factual evidence).

When allocating, the court has regard to value, nature of remedy, complexity of facts, law or evidence, the number of parties, likely oral evidence, importance beyond the parties, the parties’ views, and their circumstances. Allocation choices reflect proportionality in procedure and costs, including the applicable costs regime.

Costs Management (CPR Part 3, Section II)

In multi-track cases (subject to exceptions, e.g. very high value claims), the court expects parties to file and exchange costs budgets and may make a costs management order. Budgets focus the parties’ minds on proportionate costs for each phase (statements of case, disclosure, evidence, trial preparation, etc.). The court may revise budgets and control them prospectively. Late filing of a budget engages an automatic sanction unless the court orders otherwise.

Key Term: Costs Budget
A phase-by-phase estimate of reasonable and proportionate future costs (with incurred costs recorded) filed in multi-track proceedings. Approved budgets guide recoverable costs on detailed assessment unless there is good reason to depart.

Fixed recoverable costs (FRC) have been expanded and now apply broadly across the fast track and the intermediate track, prescribing the amount of costs recoverable at each stage by the successful party. This expansion further embeds proportionality and cost certainty consistent with the overriding objective.

Key Term: Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)
A scheme that sets the amount of legal costs recoverable by the successful party at key stages, primarily in the fast and intermediate tracks, thereby limiting satellite costs disputes and promoting proportionate litigation.

Sanctions and Relief (CPR Part 3)

The court’s power to impose sanctions for non-compliance (e.g. under CPR 3.4 and the general powers in CPR 3.1) directly implements CPR 1.1(2)(f). Sanctions include striking out all or part of a statement of case, debarring a party from relying on evidence, or ordering payment into court. Unless orders are frequently used to give a defaulting party one final opportunity to comply.

Applications for relief from sanctions (CPR 3.9) are determined in light of all the circumstances, applying a structured three-stage approach:

• assess the seriousness and significance of the breach;
• consider why the default occurred (was there a good reason?);
• evaluate all the circumstances to deal justly with the application, including the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the need to enforce compliance.

Promptness in applying for relief is essential. Minor or technical breaches that cause no prejudice are more likely to attract relief; serious or repeated breaches, or those jeopardising hearing dates, are not.

Key Term: Sanctions
Penalties imposed by the court for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. Examples include costs orders, striking out a statement of case, debarring orders, or disallowing evidence.

Key Term: Relief from Sanctions
The process under CPR 3.9 whereby a party in default applies to the court to have a sanction lifted. The court considers all circumstances, applying the three-stage test outlined above.

The case management ethos also informs disclosure directions. Standard disclosure may be ordered, but in multi-track cases the court may limit disclosure (e.g. issue-based or reliance-only) and require pragmatic e-disclosure protocols to reduce cost and complexity. The court’s consistent focus is on what is necessary for the fair determination of the real issues.

Key Term: Intermediate Track
The track for claims of moderate complexity and value (typically over £25,000 and up to £100,000), subject to complexity bands, with a costs regime based on fixed recoverable costs and directions tailored to a trial up to three days.

Worked Example 1.2

A defendant fails to file their defence by the deadline specified in a court order. The claimant applies to strike out the defence. The defendant applies for relief from sanctions, explaining the delay was due to their solicitor being unexpectedly hospitalised. How might the court approach the defendant's application?

Answer:
The court will apply the three-stage test from Denton under CPR 3.9.

1. Seriousness/Significance: Failing to file a defence is generally a serious breach.
2. Reason for Default: The solicitor's hospitalisation might be considered a good reason.
3. All Circumstances: The court will consider factors like the length of the delay, the impact on the proceedings and other parties, any previous defaults, and the overriding objective. If the delay was short, promptly explained, and did not jeopardise a hearing date, relief might be granted, possibly with a costs order against the defendant.

Exam Warning

Remember that the overriding objective applies to all stages of litigation. When considering procedural questions, always ask how the principles of justice, proportionality, cost-saving, expedition, fairness, resource allocation, and compliance might influence the court's decision or the required actions of the parties.

Worked Example 1.3

In a claim worth £15,000, the parties disagree on the interpretation of a single clause in a standard form contract. The facts are largely undisputed. The claimant suggests allocating the case to the multi-track due to the legal complexity, while the defendant argues for the fast track. Which track is more likely appropriate?

Answer:
The fast track is more likely appropriate. Although there is a legal issue, the value (£15,000) falls within the fast track limit (£10,000-£25,000). The facts are not complex, suggesting the trial could likely be concluded within one day, meeting a key fast track criterion (CPR 26.6(5)). Allocating to the multi-track might be disproportionate (CPR 1.1(2)(c)) given the value and limited factual dispute, even if the legal point is important. The court will manage the case proportionately.

Worked Example 1.4

In a multi-track case, the claimant fails to file its costs budget by the court-ordered deadline. The defendant applies for an order under CPR 3.14. The claimant applies for relief, explaining a diary error by its solicitor and files the budget two days late. What is the likely outcome?

Answer:
Late filing of a costs budget triggers the default position that the party is treated as having filed a budget comprising only applicable court fees unless the court orders otherwise. Applying the three-stage relief test, a two-day delay is capable of being serious given the importance of budgets to case management, but if no hearing date was imperilled, the default was promptly rectified and fully explained, and the other party suffered no real prejudice, the court may grant relief. Any relief is likely to be accompanied by an adverse costs order and possibly an order to attend a costs and case management conference prepared to address the impact of the delay.

Worked Example 1.5

In a defended money claim, the defendant fails to file the directions questionnaire (DQ) by the date specified in the notice of proposed allocation. The court serves a further notice granting seven days to comply. The defendant again fails to file the DQ. What may the court do?

Answer:
In a monetary claim, if a party does not comply with the notice of proposed allocation and then fails to comply with a further seven-day notice, the court will generally strike out that party’s statement of case automatically. The sanction reflects CPR 1.1(2)(f): enforcing compliance with rules and orders. Reinstatement would require an application with prompt and cogent reasons, addressing the three-stage relief analysis.

Worked Example 1.6

After directions are given in a fast track case, the defendant refuses mediation, saying “we will win and mediation is pointless.” The claimant later succeeds at trial, having beaten the defendant’s pre-trial offer. How may the refusal to mediate affect costs?

Answer:
The court will assess costs by reference to all the circumstances, including the parties’ conduct before and during proceedings and efforts to settle. An unreasonable refusal to engage in ADR may justify a costs sanction even for a successful party, such as depriving that party of part of its costs or awarding costs on a less favourable basis from a relevant date. The outcome will turn on whether refusal was reasonable in context (e.g. a clear point of law with no middle ground may justify refusal; otherwise, cost sanctions are likely).

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The overriding objective (CPR 1.1) requires courts to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
• Key components include ensuring equal footing (including accommodating litigants in person), saving expense, proportionality, dealing expeditiously and fairly, allotting resources appropriately, and enforcing compliance.
• Proportionality is assessed considering the value, importance, complexity, and parties' financial positions, and informs directions about evidence, disclosure, and trial length.
• The court has a duty of active case management (CPR 1.4) supported by extensive general powers (CPR 3.1), including varying timetables, consolidating claims, separate trials, remote hearings, and Early Neutral Evaluation.
• The intermediate track (from October 2023) now sits alongside small claims, fast track, and multi-track; allocation reflects value and complexity and drives proportionate procedures and costs.
• Fixed recoverable costs apply broadly in the fast and intermediate tracks; multi-track cases usually require costs budgets, which the court may control by costs management orders.
• Sanctions enforce compliance; common tools include unless orders and debarring orders. Relief from sanctions (CPR 3.9) requires a structured assessment of seriousness, reasons, and all circumstances with prompt applications being essential.
• Case management decisions interact with pre-action conduct and ADR: unreasonable refusal to mediate may lead to adverse costs consequences.
• Failure to file a directions questionnaire or a costs budget can trigger serious sanctions; extensions by written agreement may be available where rules permit and where no hearing date is endangered.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Overriding Objective
• Proportionality
• Case Management
• Directions
• Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)
• Unless Order
• Sanctions
• Relief from Sanctions
• Costs Budget
• Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)
• Intermediate Track