Fiona Simpson examines the merits of the Shorter Trials Scheme

5 October 2017

In September 2015 the Shorter Trials Scheme (STS) was introduced to run as a pilot from 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2018 for cases in certain sections of the English High Court – the Commercial Court, the Technology and Construction Court, the Chancery Division and the Mercantile Court.


The stated aims of the STS include:

  • to achieve shorter and earlier trials for business-related litigation;
  • to achieve resolution at a reasonable and proportionate cost; and
  • to offer dispute resolution on a commercial timescale.

Key components of the STS are:

  • a prescribed procedure which aims to reach trial within approximately ten months from the issue of proceedings;
  • designated judges to provide greater continuity, efficiency and increased judicial control over the management of the case;
  • pleadings limited to 20 pages and witness statements to 25 pages;
  • reduced disclosure obligations;
  • limited witness evidence and oral expert evidence;
  • the trial to be no longer than four days, including the judge’s reading time;
  • cross-examination to be ‘strictly controlled’ by the judge;
  • judgment to be handed down within six weeks of trial; and
  • the trial judge to summarily assess costs payable after trial.

Is my case suitable?

The STS will not usually be suitable for cases involving allegations of fraud/dishonesty, requiring extensive disclosure and/or reliance on extensive witness/expert evidence, or involving multiple issues/parties.

You might think that the STS is only suitable if the value of the claim is below a certain threshold, however, that is not the case. Take two recent examples.

National Bank of Abu Dhabi PJSC v BP Oil International Ltd [2016]

This was a compensation claim brought by a commercial bank for breach of warranty and representation in which judgment was given in favour of the claimant in the sum of over US$68m plus interest and costs.

The claim was issued in March 2016. There was very limited disclosure and no witness statements or oral evidence and the trial lasted just one day in November 2016. Judgment in favour of the claimant was handed down within two weeks of the trial. The total costs of the action up to and including trial were estimated to be approximately £350,000 on each side.

In her judgment the judge said:

The parties and their lawyers are to be congratulated for the co-operative spirit in which the litigation has been conducted which has resulted in an effective and speedy process, all as envisaged by the Shorter Trials Scheme."

The defendant appealed and under the STS procedure permission to appeal the first instance decision was expedited. At the end of July 2017 the Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal. So from the issue of proceedings to the decision of the Court of Appeal, this case lasted 17 months. Compare this with non-STS matters in which appeal hearings in the Court of Appeal are currently being listed approximately 18 months from now!

Vitol SA v Beta Renowable Group SA [2017]

This was a contractual dispute in which the claimant claimed US$651,240, alternatively US$351,830. Proceedings were issued in early September 2016 and under the STS there was limited disclosure and limited witness evidence. The two-day trial took place at the end of June 2017. Judgment was handed down within ten days of the conclusion of the trial in favour of the claimant for the lower (alternative) sum claimed. Costs are estimated to be approximately £125,000 (for the claimant) and £63,000 (for the defendant).


Being involved in court proceedings can take up a substantial amount of management or personal time which most businesses and individuals can ill afford. So, provided the case you are involved in does not include allegations of fraud or dishonesty, does not require extensive disclosure and/or reliance on extensive witness/expert evidence and does not involve multiple issues/parties, consideration should be given to taking part in the STS in an attempt to achieve an earlier outcome and to reduce costs. 

This article first appeared in Legalease on 28 September 2017.

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

You may also be interested in:

Close Load more

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility