CPR Digital Claims 2026: Using the Expanded Digital Claims Process for Non-monetary & Cross-border Commercial Disputes

CPR digital claims england practitioners now face a materially altered procedural landscape following recent reforms to the digital claims process that extend online issuance to a wider range of civil claims in England & Wales. For litigation partners, in-house counsel and international litigators, the change creates both opportunity and risk: faster issuance through HMCTS online services on one hand, and new drafting, service and enforcement traps on the other. This guide sets out, in practitioner detail, how to check eligibility, prepare documents, issue a non-monetary claim online, manage service out of jurisdiction, and protect the enforceability of any resulting order overseas. It is written as practitioner guidance and is not legal advice; case-specific matters should be referred to counsel.

Overview of the CPR digital claims england framework

The digital claims process is the structured, online route operated by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) for issuing and managing civil claims. Historically it has been most closely associated with money claims through the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) and Money Claim Online (MCOL) services. The direction of reform has been to broaden the digital route and to modernise the way claims are issued and managed online, with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee periodically updating the Civil Procedure Rules and their Practice Directions to reflect this.

For commercial claimants, the practical consequence of these reforms is a faster and more auditable issuing process, structured case management, and the growing prospect of remote directions and hearings. For cross-border litigation, the consequence is more nuanced: online issuance streamlines domestic process, but service on foreign defendants and the recognition of English orders abroad continue to be governed by the Civil Procedure Rules, applicable treaties and the law of the enforcing state. Understanding where the digital route accelerates matters and where it does not is the central tactical skill under the evolving regime.

Quick definitions

• Digital claim. A claim issued and administered through an HMCTS online service using structured fields rather than paper filing.
• Non-monetary relief. Remedies other than the payment of a debt or damages, for example injunctions, specific performance and declarations.
• Service out of jurisdiction. The service of proceedings on a defendant located outside England & Wales, which, in many cases, requires the court’s permission under the Civil Procedure Rules (Part 6).

Eligibility, which non-monetary claims may qualify

Not every non-monetary claim is suitable for a digital claims route. Online routes are designed for claims where the remedy sought can be described clearly and discretely within structured fields and where the matter does not require bespoke procedural handling. In broad terms, the categories of non-monetary relief that are conceptually most amenable to streamlined handling include:

• Specific performance. Where the contractual obligation and the order sought can be stated precisely.
• Injunctive relief. Prohibitory or mandatory injunctions where the conduct to be restrained or compelled is capable of clear definition.
• Declaratory relief. Declarations as to rights or status where the question for the court is defined and does not require extensive factual determination.

Claims that are likely to fall outside any streamlined route, or to be transferred out of it, include complex property disputes, matters turning on extensive determination of foreign law, and claims requiring bespoke evidence procedures. A digital claims process in England & Wales is a route of convenience and efficiency; it does not alter the substantive law governing the remedy, nor the court’s inherent and statutory powers. Before issuing any non-monetary claim online, confirm the current permitted scope against the Civil Procedure Rules and the relevant Practice Directions, as the categories of claim that may be issued digitally are subject to change.

How courts determine suitability for the digital process

Suitability is assessed by reference to whether the remedy can be meaningfully described in the digital form and whether the claim can be managed through structured directions. Where a claim is issued online but proves unsuitable, for instance because it requires extensive oral evidence or complex interlocutory applications, the court retains the power to give directions removing it from any streamlined track or to case-manage it in a hybrid manner. Practitioners should treat the digital route as a potential starting point for suitable non-monetary claims, while preserving the ability to apply for bespoke directions where complexity emerges.

Cross-border parties and jurisdictional thresholds

Where a defendant is outside the jurisdiction, use of a digital route does not remove the need to establish that the English court is the appropriate forum and that service out is permitted. In many cases the claimant must obtain the court’s permission to serve out of jurisdiction under CPR Part 6, demonstrating a good arguable case that the claim falls within a jurisdictional gateway, a serious issue to be tried on the merits, and that England & Wales is the proper place to bring the claim. These thresholds operate independently of any online portal and must be addressed before, or in parallel with, issuing.

Step-by-step: issuing and managing a non-monetary digital claim

The following workflow sets out the core procedure for issuing and managing a non-monetary claim through an HMCTS online service. Each step is actionable and should be read alongside the Required Documents and Timeline tables below, and alongside the current Civil Procedure Rules.

Step 1, Prepare case strategy and confirm the digital route is appropriate

Before touching any portal, confirm that the digital route fits the claim and that the remedy sought is within the current permitted scope. Check eligibility, map the enforcement strategy, and confirm the correct forum. Where enforcement overseas is likely, a key tactical note is to confirm at the outset whether the enforcing jurisdiction recognises English non-monetary remedies, an injunction or declaration that cannot be enforced abroad is of limited commercial value, however quickly it is obtained.

Step 2, Identify the correct claim type and remedy fields in the portal

Map the remedy sought to the available structured categories. Where the remedy does not fit a portal category cleanly, do not force it, instead prepare clear particulars and a detailed Schedule of Relief that articulate precisely what is sought. Structured fields are a navigation tool, not a substitute for properly pleaded relief.

Step 3, Prepare the claim form and particulars for online filing

Draft concise particulars suitable for the portal’s limits, with numbered paragraphs and a clear statement of the cause of action. Attach a Schedule of Relief listing each order sought. Example Schedule of Relief headings:

• Order 1, Injunction: “An order that the Defendant, whether by itself, its directors, officers, employees or agents, be restrained from [specified conduct] until [trial/further order].”
• Order 2, Specific performance: “An order that the Defendant perform its obligations under clause [x] of the Agreement dated [date] by [specified act] within [period].”
• Order 3, Declaration: “A declaration that [stated right/obligation].”
• Order 4, Costs and further or other relief.

Step 4, Assemble an evidence bundle optimised for the portal

Prepare the evidence bundle in the format the service requires: typically indexed PDF, with page references cross-referring to the relevant paragraphs of the particulars and witness statements. Include signed witness statements containing statements of truth in the form required by CPR Part 22, and, where technical or valuation issues arise, a concise expert summary suitable for initial directions. Observe any file-size and naming conventions, a bundle rejected on format grounds delays issuance.

Step 5, Service strategy and permission to serve out of jurisdiction

Where the defendant is abroad, determine whether the court’s permission to serve out is required and prepare the application accordingly. The application should set out the jurisdictional gateway relied upon (the gateways are set out in Practice Direction 6B), evidence of a good arguable case and serious issue to be tried, and the proposed method of service. Example wording for the body of a permission application:

“The Claimant applies for permission to serve the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim on the Defendant out of the jurisdiction at [address], on the grounds that the claim falls within gateway [specify], the Claimant has a good arguable case, there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits, and England & Wales is the proper place in which to bring the claim. Service is proposed by [method], being a method permitted by the law of [country] and consistent with any applicable treaty.”

Where service is to be effected abroad, the Hague Service Convention channels will frequently apply, and the claimant should build the additional transmission time into the litigation plan.

Step 6, Court processing and directions in the digital procedure

Once issued and served, the claim enters case management. Expect directions, deadlines for the defendant’s acknowledgment of service and defence, and the possibility of remote hearings for interim matters. Respond promptly to any court request for clarification; the structured nature of a digital process means that omissions are visible and delay-sensitive. Where urgency arises, for example an interim injunction, preserve the ability to apply for expedited directions.

Step 7, Final orders and preparing for enforcement

Final orders are sealed and made available for service in the usual way. For cross-border matters, obtain a sealed copy suitable for export, together with any certified translation and certificate required by the enforcing jurisdiction. The format and certification of the order can determine whether recognition abroad proceeds smoothly; address these requirements before, not after, the order is made.

Required documents

The following documents form the core of a non-monetary claim issued online. Observe any format and naming conventions; certified translations and notarisation may be required where foreign-language documents or foreign enforcement are involved.

A recurring practical failure is to treat the upload as an afterthought. The evidence bundle in particular should be assembled to the required format from the start, because reformatting a non-compliant bundle under time pressure is a common cause of avoidable delay.

Timeline and deadlines

The table below sets out indicative durations from preparation to enforcement. These are general estimates only; actual periods are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules and court listing. Where service abroad is required, the Hague Service Convention and foreign channels add material time, and the figures below should be adjusted accordingly.

Where service is effected through Hague Service Convention channels, transmission and completion times vary significantly by destination country and can take several weeks or longer. Building this transmission window into the litigation plan avoids the common error of assuming that the speed of digital issuance translates into speed of international service. Note that the time for a defendant served out of jurisdiction to respond is extended under CPR Part 6.

Costs and fees for CPR digital claims england

The cost of a non-monetary claim comprises HMCTS court fees, any application fee for permission to serve out, and professional fees. Court fees change periodically; the figures below are indicative and must be checked against the current HMCTS fee schedule (the “Civil and Family Court Fees” guidance, EX50) on gov.uk before any filing decision.

Help with Fees (fee remission) may be available where the applicable eligibility criteria are met; this should be confirmed against current gov.uk guidance. Professional fee estimates are indicative only and should be the subject of a specific client discussion.

Recent developments in the digital claims process

The clear direction of reform is the progressive extension and modernisation of the digital claims process, with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee issuing regular updates to the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions. The broad effect of these reforms has been to widen the range of claims that can be issued and managed online, to establish default directions for digital management, and to require practitioners to articulate the remedy sought with sufficient precision to populate structured fields.

These reforms do not displace the existing architecture of the Civil Procedure Rules. The substantive jurisdiction to grant injunctive and other non-monetary remedies continues to derive from the courts’ established statutory and inherent powers, including section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and the rules on permission to serve out of jurisdiction and on permitted methods of service remain fully in force. The digital route is, in effect, a procedural overlay that accelerates issuance and administration for eligible claims. Because the scope of the digital process is updated periodically, practitioners should always check the current, in-force version of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions before relying on any particular feature.

Interaction of CPR digital claims england with existing rules

The most important point of interaction is service. Even where an application for permission to serve out is integrated into an online process, the substantive test, jurisdictional gateway under PD 6B, good arguable case, serious issue to be tried, and proper place, is unchanged. Likewise, where service abroad is required, the permitted methods and the relevant treaty channels, including the Hague Service Convention, continue to govern. Practitioners must therefore read any digital-claims Practice Direction together with the existing CPR provisions on service and jurisdiction rather than in isolation.

Digital versus traditional procedure compared

Common pitfalls and tactical tips

An expanded digital process rewards preparation and punishes assumptions. The most frequent failures are:

• Portal mismatch. Forcing a remedy into a structured category that does not fit, instead of pleading it clearly in the particulars and Schedule of Relief.
• Inadequate particulars. Relying on the structured fields to do the work of properly pleaded relief, leaving the order sought imprecise.
• No enforcement plan. Obtaining a non-monetary order that cannot be recognised or enforced in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s assets or conduct are located.
• Overlooking permission to serve out. Assuming an online process removes the need for permission to serve a foreign defendant, it does not.
• Improper evidence format. Submitting a bundle that fails indexing, file-size or naming requirements, causing rejection and delay.
• Assuming scope. Relying on an outdated understanding of which claims may be issued online, rather than checking the current rules.

Practical tactical recommendations are: draft a “digital-ready” Schedule of Relief that maps cleanly to the available categories before issuing; carry out an early enforcement assessment so that forum and remedy choices are enforcement-led; instruct local counsel at the outset in high-risk enforcement jurisdictions; and preserve the ability to apply for expedited directions where urgency demands it. These steps, taken together, convert the speed of digital issuance into genuine commercial advantage.

Conclusion

The ongoing expansion of the CPR digital claims england regime gives commercial claimants an increasingly fast, structured route to issuing proceedings, but it does not alter the substantive law of remedies, the rules on permission to serve out of jurisdiction, or the realities of cross-border enforcement. The practitioners who extract the most value from the digital claims process will be those who treat it as an enforcement-led exercise: confirming the current scope and eligibility, drafting a digital-ready Schedule of Relief, preparing a compliant evidence bundle, and planning service and recognition abroad from the first day of the matter. Used in this way, the digital route is a genuine efficiency; used carelessly, it merely accelerates the path to an unenforceable order.

For strategic advice on a specific matter, readers are encouraged to consult the Dispute Resolution, United Kingdom practice area and the Lawyer directory, Dispute Resolution in United Kingdom. This article is practitioner guidance and not legal advice.

Sources

1. Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), full text
2. Senior Courts Act 1981
3. Ministry of Justice, Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions
4. HM Courts & Tribunals Service, Make a court claim
5. HM Courts & Tribunals Service
6. HMCTS, Fees in the civil and family courts (EX50)
7. Hague Conference on Private International Law, Service Convention
8. BAILII, British and Irish Legal Information Institute
9. The Bar Council
10. The Law Society