Civil appeals to the County Court and the High Court

For detail of the structure and hierarchy of civil courts in England and Wales, see: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary—Structure of Courts and Tribunals System.

CPR provisions

Civil appeals to the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal are generally governed by Part 52 of the CPR. General guidance on civil appeals can be found in Civil appeals: general and preliminary considerations—overview.

In addition to the provisions set out in CPR 52 and CPR PD 52A, practitioners appealing in the County Court or in the High Court also need to comply with the additional provisions set out in CPR PD 52B.

For guidance on the provisions in force before 1 October 2012, see 'Appeals before 1 October 2012' below.

Amendments have been made to appeals including CPR 52, CPR PD 52A, CPR PD 52B, CPR PD 52C and CPR PD 52D taking effect on 3 October 2016, with transitional provisions in respect of CPR 52 and CPR PD 52C. For further details of the 3 October 2016 changes see Practice Note: Changes to Part 52 in October

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents