What Is The Overriding Objective And Why Is It Relevant To My Case? 

The purpose of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) as implemented in 1998 and reformed by the Jackson reforms in 2013 is to, inter alia, improve access to justice by making civil proceedings time-effective, cost-efficient and easier for litigants in persons to understand. 

The CPR outlines various Parts and composite Rules. The cornerstone of the CPR is the ‘Overriding Objective’ as set out at Part 1. 

Understanding Part 1

Rule 1.1(1) of the CPR states that the Overriding Objective of the procedural code is to “enable the court to deal with the cases justly and at a proportionate cost”.[Reference] 

Rule 1.1(2) CPR identifies that dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost means:

1. ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in proceedings, and that parties and witnesses can give their best evidence;
2. saving expense;
3. dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate: –
   1.  to the amount of money involved;
   2. to the importance of the case;
   3.  to the complexity of the issues; and
   4. to the financial position of each party.
4. ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
5. allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and
6. enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. 

Balancing expenses with justice 

Application of the Overriding Objective does not mean that justice ought to be sacrificed for the sake of saving expense if, for example, the monetary value of the claim is low. Rather a balancing exercise must be undertaken in respect of the various considerations to ensure that a claim is conducted in a just and proportionate manner having regard to factors such as the importance of the case to the parties. 

The paramount importance of the Overriding Objective is enshrined at CPR Rules 1.2 which requires the court to seek to give effect to it when exercising any power given to it by the CPR. 

Under CPR Rule 1.4 the court has a duty to further the Overriding Objective by actively managing cases which include:- 

1. encouraging the parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings;
2. identifying the issues at an early stage;
3. deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others;
4. deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved;  encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution (GL) procedure if the court considers that appropriate, and facilitating the use of such procedure;
5. helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the case;
6. fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case;
7. considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify the cost of taking it;
8. dealing with as many aspects of the case as it can on the same occasion;
9. dealing with the case without the parties needing to attend at court;
10. making use of technology; and
11. giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently. 

Furthering Overriding Objective on Every Occasion 

Not only is the court required to seek to give effect to the Overriding Objective on each occasion that it exercises its case management powers under the CPR, but the parties themselves also have a duty to help the court to further Overriding Objective under CPR Rule 1.3. 

Accordingly, a party must have regard to the Overriding Objective in respect of every action that it takes in proceedings pursuant to the CPR and ensure that they actively conduct the same in a just, proportionate and timely manner in ways that save expense and have regard to the proportionality of costs to the issues in dispute. This may, for example, include co-operating in respect of agreeing up to a 28-day extension in relation to the time to comply with a rule, practice direction of court order pursuant to CPR Rule 3.8(4) or seeking the instruction of a single joint expert rather than a unilateral expert under CPR Part 35.