CPR 1998/FPR 2010 comparison table

  1. The Case management powers for civil Cases are in Part 3 of the CPR 1998 and for family cases in Part 4 of the FPR 2010.

Part 3.1 CPR

Text

Part 4 FPR

Text

Differences in the FPR

(2)(a)

extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction or court order (even if an application for extension is made after the time for compliance has expired)

(3)(a)

extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction or court order (even if an application for extension is made after the time for compliance has expired)

Identical

(b)

adjourn or bring forward a hearing

(b)

make such order for disclosure and inspection[1], including specific disclosure of documents, as it thinks fit

New Provision in the FPR section which isn't found in CPR 1998

(c)

require a party or a party's legal representative to attend the court

(c)

adjourn or bring forward a hearing

FPR provision Identical to 3(b) CPR 1998

(d)

hold a hearing and receive evidence by telephone or by using any other method of direct oral communication

(d)

require a party or a party's legal representative to attend the court

FPR provision identical to 3(c) FPR 1998

(e)

direct that part of any proceedings (such as a counterclaim) be dealt with as separate proceedings

(e)

hold a hearing and receive evidence by telephone or by using any other method of direct oral communication

FPR provision identical to 3(d)  CPR 1998

(f)

Stay[2] the whole or part of any proceedings or judgment either generally or until a specified date or event

(f)

direct that part of any proceedings be dealt with as separate proceedings

FPR provision nearly identical to 3(e) CPR 1998 – save that the reference to counterclaim is removed

(g)

consolidate proceedings

(g)

Stay the whole or part of any proceedings or judgment either generally or until a specified date or event

FPR provision identical to 3(f) CPR 1998

(h)

try two or more claims on the same occasion

(h)

consolidate proceedings

FPR provision identical to 3(g) CPR 1998

(i)

direct a separate trial of any issue

(i)

hear two or more applications on the same occasion

FPR provision identical to 3(h) CPR 1998 save for the fact that CPR refers to “trying” two or more “claims” whereas the FPR refers to “hearing” two or more “applications”

(j)

decide the order in which issues are to be tried

(j)

direct a separate hearing of any issue

Identical to 3(i) CPR 1998 save for the word “trial” is replaced with “hearing” in the FPR

(k)

exclude an issue from consideration

(k)

decide the order in which issues are to be heard

Identical to 3(j) CPR 1998 save for the reference to trying issues is referred to as “hearing” issues in the FPR

(l)

dismiss or give judgment on a claim after a decision on a preliminary issue

(l)

exclude an issue from consideration

FPR provision is identical to 3(k) CPR 1998

(ll)

order any party to file and serve an estimate of costs

(m)

dismiss or give a decision on an application after a decision on a preliminary issue

FPR provision almost identical to 3 (l) CPR 1998 save for the word “judgement” replaced with “decision” and instead of referring to a “claim” the FPR replaces it with “application”

(m)

take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective

(n)

direct any party to file and serve an estimate of costs; and

The FPR is identical to 3(ll) CPR 1998 save for the fact that it refers to a court that “directs” rather than “orders” in the FPR provision

(o)

take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective

FPR provision identical to 3(m) CPR 1998



[1] These terms are explained in Rule 21.1

[2] A stay imposes a halt on proceedings, apart from taking any steps allowed by the Rules or the terms of the stay. Proceedings can be continued if a stay is lifted.

Copyright Mena Ruparel 9th September 2012