Shorter trials: What GCs should know about the Shorter Trials Scheme

In‑house teams often question whether the time, cost and management distraction of court litigation can really be justified.

The Shorter Trials Scheme (“STS”) is one way the judiciary has sought to resolve that challenge. It isn’t suitable for every dispute, but in cases where it applies it can have a meaningful impact on how the litigation is run.

What is the Shorter Trials Scheme?

The STS is a procedural route available in the Business and Property Courts, governed by PD 57AB. It was introduced on a permanent basis in 2018, so is nothing new. In very broad terms, it is designed for relatively straightforward commercial disputes and has a number of defining features:

• trials are limited to a maximum of four days, including judicial reading time[1];

• cases are generally brought to trial much more quickly than under the standard High Court timetable (e.g. trial should be no more than 8 months after the CMC[2]);

• disclosure, witness evidence and expert evidence are tightly controlled;

• a docketed judge usually manages the case from an early stage; and

• costs management does not apply.[3]

The scheme is not usually suitable for cases involving fraud or dishonesty, disputes requiring extensive disclosure or reliance upon extensive witness or expert evidence, complex multi‑party litigation or certain other cases such as IP or public procurement cases.[4]

Why it is useful 

From the perspective of in‑house teams, the STS may alter three features that often make litigation unattractive:

• Duration, since the dispute is pushed towards resolution far more quickly than conventional High Court proceedings.

• Escalation of costs. Although costs management does not apply, the tight control of evidence and procedure under the scheme can help contain costs.

• Management time. A narrower, issue‑focused dispute typically means fewer internal documents, fewer witnesses and less disruption to the business.

That said, the scheme only delivers those benefits if it is considered early and actively managed. The scheme is not mandatory and a claimant must first elect to “opt in”, although the court may encourage the parties to do so in appropriate cases. The parties may also adopt the scheme by agreement and the defendant may apply for an order that a claim be transferred in.[5] Left too late, the opportunity is therefore often lost.

What can be done to mitigate length and cost even if the STS isn’t used?

Alongside the STS, PD 57AB also provides for the Flexible Trials Scheme (“FTS”)[6]. Rather than imposing a shortened timetable, the FTS allows parties, by agreement, to adapt procedural features such as disclosure, witness evidence and submissions at trial to fit the dispute. The attraction of the FTS is the ability to strip out procedural steps that add cost without advancing resolution.

Whether or not a case ultimately proceeds under the STS or the FTS, there are other practical steps in‑house teams can take to reduce the length and expense of English court litigation.

1. Frame disputes narrowly from the outset

Many disputes become expensive because they start life unfocused. Early internal work to identify the real commercial issues that matter, and which arguments are genuinely determinative, can later support a tighter pleadings strategy, reduced disclosure and (where appropriate) STS eligibility.

2. Be disciplined about document creation and retention

Long before litigation is threatened, policies around emails, messaging platforms and document storage materially affect future disclosure burdens. Excess data rarely helps, but it almost always costs to review.

3. Ask early: “Would this suit a shorter trial?”

The STS has to be considered at the outset of proceedings, and the court expects parties to address suitability at the pre-action stage and at the first CMC. Raising it late is often ineffective. 

Even if the case does not end up in the STS, the discipline of asking the question often leads to a leaner procedural approach.

4. Take court control seriously

A notable feature of the STS is the court’s active role in limiting evidence and focusing issues. Parties to the litigation in the STS should be open to paper determinations of interim issues, strict witness selection, and limits on expert evidence where these steps reduce cost without undermining outcome.

5. Keep ADR under active review

The possibility of proceeding under the STS can sharpen settlement discussions by emphasising speed and procedural discipline. Conversely, where a case starts to move beyond the STS parameters, that shift can provide a timely trigger for parties to revisit ADR (such as mediation) before costs and complexity escalate.

Final thought

If used properly and combined with early strategic decisions by in‑house teams, the STS in particular can be a powerful tool in controlling both time and cost. For GCs, the key is to be aware that the scheme exists and always seek to manage disputes with proportionality in mind from day one.