UK: Short But Mighty…?

The Shorter Trials Scheme (ST") is one of a raft of measures designed to improve the customer experience of civil justice.

In the face of ever greater competition between jurisdictions, the Woolf and Jackson Reforms sought to open up litigation procedure, demystifying it, and reducing costs and timelines into the bargain.  In developing the STS, their Justices Hamblen (as he was), Edwards-Stuart, Birss and Jay picked up the baton. With support from Sara Cockerill QC (Essex Court Chambers, now Mrs Justice Cockerill) and Ed Crosse (Partner, Simmons & Simmons LLP), they prepared the draft Practice Direction (51N, which also covers the Flexible Trial Scheme) for the pilot scheme. The pilot opened for business in October 2015 and, if you haven't had cause to test it out yet, fear not, at a conference on 2 July 2018 Mr Justice Birss announced the STS is now a permanent option for High Court litigation.

The STS aims to "achieve short and earlier trials for business related litigation, at a reasonable and proportionate cost."1a The focus on commercial timescales for dispute resolution is key but so too is maintaining the quality of decisions.

If it all sounds a bit familiar to IP is!

In establishing the STS, the High Court appears to have drawn on the highly successful Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court (IPEC) model, something which may not surprise more eagle eyed readers, given the role that Birss J played in establishing the new regime in IPEC.

Details, details, details

The STS is available in the Chancery Division (including the Patents and Companies Courts), the Commercial, London Circuit Commercial and Technology and Construction Courts in the Rolls Building. It is most suitable for time-sensitive cases of moderate complexity (given the four day trial limit) requiring little evidence or disclosure, where damages may exceed those recoverable in IPEC, or the costs caps are not desirable.

To achieve its goals, the STS employed a number of mechanisms, the most significant of which are:

  • Strict timelines - the desired efficiency and cost savings cannot be achieved without them, so this is a very desirable feature of the STS. They cover most phases of litigation including:

    • a defendant should respond to a letter of claim within 14 days;
    • the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim should be served promptly following a defendant's response to the Statements of Case;
    • 28 days after service of the Claim Form and Particulars the Defence must be served;
    • within 12 weeks of Acknowledgement of Service, the Case Management Conference (CMC) should take place;
    • disclosure requests must be exchanged at least 14 days before the CMC;
    • the trial must be no more than eight months after the CMC (and will be limited to four days);
    • judgment should be handed down within six weeks of trial; and
    • schedules of costs should be exchanged within 21 days of trial and then be assessed summarily at the final order hearing.

The parties are allowed to agree one 14 day extension for the Defence and one seven day extension for the other dates but that's it. Any further extensions are strictly at the court's discretion;

  • Reduced pleadings - Statements of Case are limited to 20 pages and any core documents should be attached;
  • Quick CMC and trial - these are listed promptly (the CMC is listed ASAP after the Acknowledgment of Service) to keep the case moving quickly;
  • Paper applications - other than those made at the CMC, applications should be decided on the papers and/or heard by phone;
  • Limited evidence and disclosure - unless otherwise ordered, fact and expert evidence is in writing and limited in length. Any oral evidence will be limited to the issues. Disclosure is also limited to those documents relied on, requested by the other party and/or agreed or ordered;
  • Docketed judges - this might have been one of the scheme's show stoppers, designed to increase continuity and efficiency, with all case management work and the trial itself conducted by the same docketed judge. However, the diary challenges involved mean this has was not achieved as often as hoped during the pilot; and
  • No costs budgeting - unless otherwise agreed by the parties the Precedent H costs budgeting regime of the general High Court does not apply to the STS. Rather, the parties exchange costs schedules no later than three weeks after trial, after which the trial judge summarily assesses the costs in the entire case.

Case allocation to the STS is via an "opt-in". A claimant must first select the STS route, though the court may encourage parties to opt-in where the case is appropriate but has been started in a different forum.

Birss J has confirmed the court may, on application to a judge, transfer existing "business cases" into, and out of, the STS under the overriding objective and its general case management powers1b. Such a flexible approach means parties can reassess the suitability of their case for the scheme as it develops. There remains something of a question mark as to the extent to which the court will, of its own volition, seek to transfer existing cases as they become suitable for the scheme. For example, in the designs case of Neptune v Devol2, Birss J proposed a transfer into the STS, but this only happened because it was subsequently agreed to by the parties. Other cases have been transferred into the scheme during the course of the pilot.

Pilot report card and prospects for the future

The STS pilot certainly got off to a promising start. The first case heard under the scheme, a compensation claim brought by a commercial bank3, was generally acknowledged as a success. The parties agreed to proceed under the STS, which led to a one day hearing, with limited disclosure and no oral or written witness evidence. Judgment, which praised the parties for their cooperative approach to the proceedings, was handed down in less than two weeks. In many ways this was the perfect example of efficiency and speed.

Initially, limited awareness of the STS resulted in a relatively low number of cases passing through the scheme. However, as the pilot progressed this changed and it proved a popular option for litigants.

In later cases heard under the scheme there appears to have been some evolution of the rules. The decision of Henry Carr J in Neptune noted that the case, which involved an allegation of dishonesty, would "not normally be suitable" for the STS. However, it was still heard within the scheme and "extensive disclosure was given and extensive evidence of fact and expert evidence was relied upon". While this approach is quite a departure from the procedure outlined above, the judgment made clear that cases involving more complex issues could be heard within the scheme, provided those cases are "controlled from an early stage by robust case management". The Judge also noted that in the specific example of Neptune, which involved liability in relation to multiple registered and unregistered designs, it may have been advisable to limit the trial to an "appropriate, and limited, selection" of those designs. There was no suggestion in that case that the Judge wished to transfer the case back out of the scheme, and the trial was heard within the requisite four day limit.

The success of the STS is likely to revolve, in part, around the way that discretion of the judges is exercised in STS cases. For example, again in relation to the Neptune designs case, the Defendant applied to amend its case quite significantly, and introduce expert evidence, at a hearing around halfway between the CMC and trial. In the IPEC, this is very unlikely to have succeeded, but in the STS the amendments and additional evidence were allowed (albeit with a warning as to the costs consequences). Outside of the Neptune case it is clear from the pilot that the STS can offer a faster and more cost-effective means of litigating business related cases of moderate complexity (as many IP cases are), where the damages or costs caps of IPEC are not desirable. This should be applauded; the courts making litigation more accessible and appropriate for a broader range of disputes is helpful, and keeping our courts competitive is great for clients with issues that need faster and more cost-effective resolution.

Comparison table

  General High Court Shorter Trials Scheme IPEC

In excess of a year from issue to trial in standard cases - often 12-18 months

Trial within 12 months of issue, tight limits for scheduling of CMC, length of trial and judgment. Currently the quickest option

Generally takes 12-18 months from issue to trial


Pre-action Practice Direction applies

Truncated pre-action procedures, although practice direction still applies.

Penalty for not complying with Pre-action Practice Direction that the Defendant has 70 days for Defence


Standard pleadings where less detail is required than other options.

Pleadings expected to be thorough, but concise

Pleadings expected to be thorough, but concise

Case management

Not active case management

Active case management (preferably by a docketed judge)

Active case management with some innovative case management options available


No limit on evidence of fact, though court's permission is required for expert evidence

Limited witness evidence. Expert evidence only if strictly required.

Extent of witness evidence and expert evidence considered by judge at CMC.


Standard disclosure

Limited or no disclosure

No standard disclosure, where specific disclosure is ordered will be limited to specific documents or classes of document

Costs budgeting / management

Precedent H costs management rules apply to all claims worth less than £10million

No costs budgeting

No costs budgeting but scale costs recovery

Costs recovery and damages

Costs recovery usually on a standard basis (but parties may be held to budget). No limit to damages recovery

Summary assessment of costs after trial. No limit to damages recovery

Costs recovery capped at £50k (based on phases), damages capped at £500k


1a Short and Flexible Trial Procedures Pilot Schemes Announcement, 30 September 2015, page 1.

1b Family Mosaic Home Ownership Ltd v Peer Real Estate Ltd [2016] EWHC 257 (Ch)

2 Neptune (Europe) Limited v Devol Kitchens Limited [2017] EWHC 2172 (Pat)

3 National Bank of Abu Dhabi PJSC v BP Oil International Ltd [2016] EWHC 2892 (Comm) (18 November 2016)

Read the original article on

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Marks & Clerk
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Marks & Clerk
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions