A Must-Know Litigation Change

Do you want to impress law firms with your litigation knowledge? Read on.

The CPR just got a makeover. On 6 April, sweeping changes to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) landed – a major update designed to simplify and modernise the rules governing interim remedies in litigation.

Most notably, CPR Part 25 – the playbook for interim remedies like freezing orders and search orders – has been restructured and streamlined. Now, we know this doesn't sound crazy exciting...

BUT the implications for law firms, particularly those working in civil fraud, are significant, and if you can explain these in an application or interview, you're bound to stand out.

So, what’s changed in CPR 25?

1. A New Name and Structure
   CPR Part 25 is no longer called “Interim Remedies Including Security for Costs” – now it’s just “Interim Remedies.” Shorter, clearer. The rules have been broken down into six neat sections, each focusing on a different type of remedy. Think of it like organising your messy folders into labelled subfolders. Oh, and the old Practice Directions 25A and 25B? Gone. Their content has been folded into the main rules to make things easier to find.
2. Imaging Orders Finally Get a Home
   Imaging orders – where someone’s digital devices are copied to preserve evidence – used to exist in practice but weren’t officially written into the rules. That’s changed. They’re now clearly included under CPR 25.1(1)(i). Why does this matter? Because in modern fraud cases, key evidence often lives in phones or cloud accounts. Now courts have formal backing to use these tools.
3. New Model Orders (With Instructions!)
   There are now three updated example court orders (called “model orders”) – including one that combines search and imaging powers. They come with footnotes and formatting tips, plus a big red-flag note: if you change anything, you must explain why. It’s about making the process more consistent and transparent – no surprises or hidden edits allowed.
4. More Inclusive Language
   Outdated wording like “women who may be alone” has been replaced with “persons.” It’s a small but important shift to make the rules more inclusive. But the rule behind the words hasn’t changed: if someone might be alone when a search happens, the court should make sure there’s someone else present to support them. Law firms involved in searches must be mindful of this.

How Does This Impact Law Firms?