header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 December 2016 / Julia Messervy-Whiting , Sofia Lobosco
Issue: 7728 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Insurance / reinsurance , CPR
printer mail-detail

Time to comply

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Julia Messervy-Whiting & Sofia Lobosco outline the importance of compliance with court orders, directions and CPR
    • An analysis of Eaglesham v MOD; Clearway Drainage Systems v Miles Smith; and UPL Europe Ltd v Agchemaccess Chemicals Ltd and others reinforcing the importance of compliance.

    In recent months, the importance of compliance with court orders, directions and CPR has again been reinforced.

    CPR “requires” all parties to adhere to the overriding objective to enable the courts to deal with all cases “expeditiously and fairly”. This involves observing case management provisions and directions.

    In a November 2016 decision (Eaglesham v MOD [2016] EWHC 3011 (QB)) this principle was illustrated in relation to “unless” orders.

    Application

    The defendant made application to extend time for compliance with an unless order and for relief from sanctions. The direction stated: “Unless the defendant complies with para 1 [disclosure of specified documents] in full the defence shall be

    If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
    If you are already a subscriber sign in
    ...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

    MOVERS & SHAKERS

    Read All
    Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

    Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

    Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

    EIP—Rob Barker

    EIP—Rob Barker

    IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

    Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

    Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

    Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
    The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
    NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
    Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
    NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
    The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
    NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
    A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
    NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
    Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll