The Law Society has responded to a Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) consultation proposing changes to CPR Part 27 and Practice Direction 27A, which would give judges greater power to determine small claims without a hearing.
The central proposal is to allow the court to direct that a claim be decided on written evidence and submissions, even where one or more parties object.
Currently, paper determination generally requires the agreement of all parties and so the proposed rules would replace that consent requirement with judicial discretion.
The CPRC says the aim is to make proportionate use of judicial time, improve efficiency and reduce delays in the county courts.
The proposed scheme follows the Small Claims Paper Determination Pilot, which tested paper decisions in selected court centres between June 2022 and October 2025.
Under the permanent rules, judges would consider the material before them, including the parties’ Directions Questionnaires, before deciding whether a case is suitable for determination on the papers.
Temporary changes to Form N180 would also be retained, so parties can indicate whether they think a hearing is needed and explain any objection.
If a judge considers paper determination appropriate, the court will give notice of the proposed decision date and directions for any further evidence, documents or written submissions.
Parties would have an opportunity to object, and the judge would be expected to consider those objections before deciding whether the claim should proceed without a hearing.
The CPRC appears to envisage use of the procedure mainly for straightforward, lower-value disputes where the issues are narrow and oral evidence is unlikely to assist.
What this means in practice is that a paper determination may be ordered by the Court, even if the parties do not consent to such.
While the Law Society supports efforts to reduce backlogs, it warns that wider use of paper-based determinations could undermine access to justice. Hearings allow parties to explain their case, respond to evidence and answer judicial questions.
Removing that opportunity may particularly disadvantage litigants in person and could affect both the fairness and quality of decisions.
The Society argues that the pilot evidence relied on by the CPRC is not sufficiently robust to justify permanent reform without further assessment.
The Society has called for stronger safeguards, including clear judicial guidance, substantive reasons for decisions and adequate time for parties to object.
It recommends further piloting and evaluation focused not just on speed, but on fairness, user satisfaction, efficiency and the quality of outcomes.
For solicitors and barristers, the reforms would increase the importance of written advocacy.
Evidence and submissions would need to be comprehensive, clear and well-structured from the outset, with arguments anticipated that might otherwise be developed orally.
Representatives should also advise clients on the risks of paper determination and be prepared to oppose it where a hearing is needed for fairness.
At Dyne Solicitors, we specialise in litigation. For a non-obligation chat, contact Patrik Jones-Wright (pjw@dynesolicitors.co.uk) or Alex Sandland (as@dynesolicitors.co.uk).