A recent post on InsideCounsel.com by Alison Newstead and Andrew Davidson of Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s London office highlights a number of differences and the issues when litigating in the UK: Differences that may pose potential pitfalls for those inexperienced with litigating in this jurisdiction.

Previously on this blog we looked at why London is a preferred venue for complex and high-value commercial litigation. In a high proportion of cases brought before the Commercial Court, as well as the Chancery division and other divisions of the High Court in London, parties have chosen to adopt English law as the governing law for their contracts and London as their forum for settling disputes. However, there are differences that clients should be aware of when litigating in England & Wales, and these differences that often pose a potential pitfall for those clients inexperienced with litigating in this jurisdiction. A recent post on Inside Counsel.com on this topic by Alison Newstead and Andrew Davidson of Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s London office highlighted a number of these differences and the issues that clients inexperienced in UK litigation should be aware of.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which are similar to say the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure in the United States, govern all civil disputes in the English courts. A fundamental principle of the CPR when litigating in England & Wales is the duty of all parties and their legal representatives is to assist the court in furthering the objective of the courts to deal with cases “justly and at proportionate cost.” This is the “overriding objective”. As such, there is an emphasis on active management by judges.

The CPR allow judges to actively manage cases to achieve the overriding objective, and their powers include a wide range of costs budgeting powers, as well as powers to give specific directions on everything from discovery to witnesses. Judges can impose adverse costs orders and other sanctions for non-compliance with either the CPR or specific directions and orders, as well as ultimately strike out claims for non-compliance.