Rule Committees make the rules that govern the practice and procedure followed in each corresponding jurisdiction. This page is an attempt to draw together the various threads of work and to bring an element of transparency to the process.
The mouseinthecourt has specifically collated discussion about Open Justice matters within the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.
Court Rule Committees
Civil Procedure Rule Committee
Court of Protection Rule Committee
Criminal Procedure Rule Committee
Family Procedure Rule Committee
Insolvency Rules Committee
Online Procedure Rules Committee
Tribunal Procedure Committee
Other Court Related Groups
Media Working Group
London Criminal Justice Board
Civil Procedure Rule Committee
Website
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/civil-procedure-rules-committee
Constitution includes
Minutes
Click to see all the below merged into one document
Court of Protection Rule Committee
Website
None
Minutes
Click to see all the below merged into one document
Criminal Procedure Rule Committee
Committee Website
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/criminal-procedure-rule-committee
Minutes
Click to see all the below merged into one document
Family Procedure Rule Committee
Committee Website
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/family-procedure-rule-committee
Constitution includes
–
Minutes
Click to see all the below merged into one document
Insolvency Rules Committee
Website
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/insolvency-rules-committee
Constitution includes
Minutes
Not Published
Online Procedure Rules Committee
Website
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/online-procedure-rule-committee
Constitution includes
Legal Expert
Lay-person
IT Expert
Minutes
Tribunal Procedure Committee
Website
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/tribunal-procedure-committee/about
Minutes
Click to see all the below merged into one document
Criminal Justice Board
Website
www.gov.uk/government/groups/criminal-justice-board
Minutes
Click to see all the below merged into one document
Crown Court Improvement Group
Website
www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-improvement-group/
Minutes
Not published but requested under FOI
Media Working Group
Website
www.gov.uk/guidance/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service-engagement-groups
Minutes
Click to see all the below merged into one document
London Criminal Justice Board
Website
Minutes
Click to see all the below merged into one document
Please ignore working notes below – ta!
25/7/2018 – 9.1
9.1 MC said that following recent Freedom of Information (FOI) requests concerning the TPC, the Government Legal Department (GLD) would provide the TPC with a guidance note to raise their awareness about the main provisions under the FOI Act 2000 (FOIA). She added that the guidance note would cover topics such as: legislative overview, what information is covered by the FOIA, the process to make a FOI request and what were the exemption categories under FOIA.
5/4/2019 – 5.4
5.4 The TPC discussed the accessibility of tribunals procedure rules that were posted on the
government website (gov.uk) and available to the public. The TPC Secretariat confirmed that the National Archives, who were responsible for updating the legislation website no longer performed the function for updating and consolidating the Tribunal’s procedure rules (following the conclusion of the biannual Tribunal amendment rule exercises).
5.5 The TPC were concerned that many Tribunal users, especially ‘litigants in person’, would
have considerable difficulty in working out what were the up to date rules governing their
case, having regard to various amendments to the rules made from time to time. This
obstacle could disadvantage private individuals involved in Tribunal proceedings.
Dec 2019 – 5.
Confidentiality Sub-group
5.1. PR said that he had asked the Civil Procedure Rule Committee about their position in light of the judgment from the Supreme Court in Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd [2019] UKSC 38 and asked them to keep the TPC informed of their progress.
5.2. TF said that making a rule on the questions of principle and practice raised by
this case may not be welcome in view of the lack of applications by 3rd parties for documents.
5.3. PR said that he would ask the SPT for his views on this and would let members know the outcome at the February meeting.
5.4. MJR said that a practice direction may be the best way to deal with this.
AP/58/19: To ask the SPT for his views on the Dring case – PR
AP/59/19: To get an update from each Chamber of their view in light of the Dring case – CU
Senior President of Tribunals
Feb 2020
Confidentiality Sub-Group
7.1. TF said that the consultation questionnaire has gone out to tribunal chamber presidents. WF said that Judge McKenna has concerns about confidentiality in the General Regulatory Chamber (First-tier Tribunal), but she is likely to raise these formally with the SPT’s Office.
June 2020 –
Dring Case
6.1 PR asked RL about the position for the response from the (FtT) SEC in respect of the ‘Dring’ case concerning third party access and the wider confidentiality topic. RL said that there had been some confusion as to who should complete the SEC questionnaire following the retirement of Judge Aitken. RL was discussing the issue with Judge Mary Clark, the acting SEC President and expected the questionnaire to be completed shortly.
6.2 PR asked RL if the SPT’s office could prepare a note on the ‘Dring’ case detailing all the judicial replies from the Chamber Presidents for the 09 July TPC meeting.
6.3 PR asked RL about the SPT’s retirement date. RL said his last working day was on 15 June and his successor was likely to be appointed in September 2020. During this interim period Lord Justice Lindblom, the Deputy Senior President of Tribunals would cover the SPT role.
AP/42/20. To prepare a note on the ‘Dring’ case summarising all the replies received from the Chamber Presidents- RL
1.4 In relation to AP/59/19, TF said that the update in respect of the ‘Dring’ case noted on the TPC Action log was incomplete. It was his understanding that the confidentiality Questionnaire in respect of the (Firsttier Tribunal) Social Entitlement Chamber (SEC) had not yet been completed due to a change in senior judicial roles following the retirement of Judge Aitken, the former SEC President. He expected the acting SEC Chamber President would reply to the confidentiality questionnaire that the Senior President of Tribunals (SPT)’s office had circulated to the Chamber Presidents of the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) and Upper Tribunal (UT) seeking their thoughts.
July 2020 –
Dring Case access to documents
7.1 PR said that CY had provided the TPC with a comprehensive schedule detailing the Chamber Presidents responses in respect of the ‘Dring’ case (that concerned third party access to documents and the wider confidentiality topic in tribunals). PR added that he was not aware what approach the Civil Rules Procedure Committee would be taking to address the Dring judgment in respect of open justice.
7.2 PR said that the SPT’s Office were progressing work to produce pratice directions to deal with requests for access to recordings of hearings and to deal with requests from third parties for documents and recordings. The TPC agreed that this work being undertaked by the SPT’s office would have a bearing on whether the TPC made rule changes in the future to address the Dring judgment (following a public consultaion).
7.3 The TPC discussed the approach to be taken if the TPC were minded to make a rule change to address the Supreme’s Court’s judgment taking into account the ongoing work by the SPT’s office to produce new pratice directions to safeguard the principles of open justice. The TPC agreed that it would be helfpul to clarify with the SPT’s office what open justice topics would be addressed in their intended PD’s.
7.4 PR said he would write to CY to clarify if the SPT‘s intended PDs would extend to all documents in the tribunal file or is it only douments referred to in a hearing.
AP/51/20: To write to CY in the SPT’s Office to clarify the contents of the intended Practice Directions for access to documents/open justice. – PR
Oct 2020
Confidentiality Sub-group
Dring Case and access to documents
6.1 RL reported that the work on the draft Practice Directions (PD) to deal with requests for access to recordings of hearings and to deal with requests from third parties for documents and recordings was ongoing. SPT’s officials had met with the UT Presidents on 02 October at which time the drafts PDs were discussed and that further drafting work was continuing to incorporate their proposed amendments. A related meeting with the FtT Chamber Presidents was scheduled on 07 October to obtain their views.
6.2 RL said that she expected the drafting exercise to be completed by the end of November and subsequently she would be seeking to obtain the SPT’s approval before the PDs were considered/signed off by the Lord Chancellor.
AP/64/20: To share the draft confidentiality practice directions with the TPC members. –RL
Nov 2020
Dring Case and access to documents
6.1 RL reported that the work being led by CY on the draft PDs to deal with requests for access to recordings of hearings and to deal with requests from third parties for documents and recordings was still ongoing.
6.2 RL said that the draft PDs would be amended to incorporate judicial feedback and to possibly cover the Employment Tribunal jurisdiction. RL expected the framework for the final practice directions to be wide enough to cover all tribunal jurisdictions and for the exercise to be finalised sometime in December 2020.
AP/70/20: To share the draft confidentiality practice directions with the TPC members as soon as they were available. –RL
Dec 2020
Dring Case and access to documents
6.1 RL reported that the work being led by the SPT’s Office on the draft PDs to deal with requests for access to recordings of hearings and to deal with requests from third parties for documents and recordings was still ongoing.
6.2 PR asked RL to circulate the draft PDs to the TPC out of committee. The topic would be then discussed by the TPC at the planned January 2021 TPC meeting.
Feb2021
Dring Case and access to documents
6.1 RL reported that the work being led by the SPT’s Office on the draft practice directions (PD) to deal with requests for access to recordings of hearings and requests from third parties for documents and recordings was currently on hold due to another judicial project being prioritised by the SPT’s Office. She was unable to provide a definite deadline/target date for the work to be completed by the SPT’s Office but reassured the TPC that this work would be taken forward by her replacement.
April 2021
Dring Case and access to documents
6.1 SoR reported that there were no new developments in respect to the work being led by the SPT’s Office on the draft practice direction to deal with requests for access to recordings of hearings and requests from third parties for documents and recordings. The TPC agreed that this matter did not require its involvement to progress the matter.
April 2022
1.9 The TPC noted that there were no urgent matters to be considered by the Confidentiality Sub-Group for potential rule changes across the tribunal chambers. The TPC agreed that it would be efficient to remove the Confidentiality Sub-Group as a standing agenda item at future meetings unless the topic required the TPC’s immediate attention.
July 2022
‘Cider of Sweden’ and Third-party Costs Orders in the Tax Chamber (FtT)
5.4 ML said he had prepared a position paper on the issues raised by Judge Poole in the case of Cider of Sweden Limited v HMRC and Ernst & Young LLP [2022] UKFTT 00126 (TC). The matter had been briefly discussed at the 09 June 2022 TPC meeting.
5.5 Judge Poole had asked the TPC to consider the issues he had raised in his judgment, specifically his proposal for changes to tribunal procedural rules in respect of costs in the Tax Chamber (FtT).
5.6 ML said the issues raised by Judge Poole related to the interaction between rules 1, 10, 20, 21 and 23 of the Tribunal Procedure (FtT) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, in the context of an application by a nonparty for access to documents in tribunal proceedings. ML confirmed that the costs decision had been made on the papers without a hearing.
5.7 ML summarised the Costs Sub-group’s thinking on the matter and highlighted that existing case law had established a public right of access to certain tribunal documents (in the Tax Chamber (FtT)). But there was no provision in the Rules guiding the procedure for exercising (or contesting) that right. He added that there was no equivalent to Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 5.4C, a provision which has been updated and developed over the years in response to increased awareness of rights to information and the public policy in favour of transparency.
5.8 The TPC discussed ML’s points in relation to whether there should be an equivalent CPR 5.4C in the Rules that apply to the Tax Chamber (FtT), i.e., whether a new rule should apply to all tribunals that do not have any equivalent to CPR 5.4C and the categories of document that might be specified as being disclosable as of right. The TPC observed that may vary from chamber to chamber.
5.9 TF said that the matter had already been flagged up in the ‘Dring’ case that had been heard in the Supreme Court in relation to confidentiality of documents, the accessibility and sharing of Tribunal information and documents, the publication of decisions. TF added that the matter had been brought to the attention of the former SPT in 2019. The former SPT had agreed to take this matter forward by way of a Practice Direction, but it appeared there had been no progress to date to resolve the matter.
5.10 . SoR reported that this work had been delayed due to the prioritisation for other work by the SPT. The SPT would welcome the TPC’s input to progress this matter.
5.11 The TPC agreed to write to Judge Poole, thanking him for bringing this matter to the TPC. To confirm that the matter would be taken forward by the Costs Sub-group, i.e. to consider whether the TPC should consult on a new rule (or rules) equivalent to CPR 5.4C. The TPC would also use this opportunity to consider whether they should apply a similar rule change to other FtT and UT chambers.
AP/51/22: To write to Judge Poole to advise him of the TPC’s approach in respect of costs in the Tax Chamber (FtT). – ML
AP/52/22: To add the topic ‘Confidentiality’ as an agenda item to the October 2022 TPC meeting. – TPC
24/3/2020 & 26/3/2020 – OJ bits re pandemic + what is “‘media representative”
Mouse in the Court 