Overriding objective

The founding principle behind every civil court rule in England and Wales — that cases should be dealt with justly and at proportionate cost.

Can I actually rely on the overriding objective in my own case?

Yes. Litigants in person can and do refer to the overriding objective, for example when asking a court to be flexible about a procedural slip, or when opposing a step by the other side that seems disproportionate to what is at stake. Courts already have a duty to apply it, but pointing to it explicitly in your own submissions can help frame your argument.

Does proportionate cost mean the court will always keep things cheap?

Not automatically — proportionality is judged against the value and importance of the case, not against what feels affordable to one side. A modest small claim will attract far less procedural weight than a complex, high-value dispute, but the court still has to allot appropriate resources to deal with the issues raised fairly.

What does 'equal footing' mean if the other side has a solicitor and I don't?

It does not mean the court gives you the same legal knowledge as a represented party. It means the court should manage the case so that being unrepresented does not unfairly prevent you from participating fully — for example, by explaining procedure in plain terms, giving reasonable time to respond to applications, and not penalising minor procedural errors as harshly as it might for a professional advisor.

Can the overriding objective override a specific procedural rule?

No. The overriding objective guides how the court interprets and applies the rules, and gives it discretion in case management, but it does not let a court ignore a clear rule altogether. Where a rule is specific, that rule generally governs — the overriding objective shapes how discretion within the rules is exercised.

Does the overriding objective apply to the small claims track specifically?

Yes, it applies to the whole of the Civil Procedure Rules, including cases allocated to the small claims track. In practice, small claims are managed with a lighter touch precisely because the overriding objective calls for procedure proportionate to the value and complexity of the case.

What happens if the other side ignores the overriding objective?

You can raise it with the court — for example, if the other side makes unnecessary applications, drags out disclosure, or takes technical points that add cost without adding value. The court can use its case management powers, including costs orders, to discourage conduct that runs against dealing with the case justly and proportionately.

Overriding objective

Small Claims · Glossary

Overriding objective

The founding principle behind every civil court rule in England and Wales — that cases should be dealt with justly and at proportionate cost.

Last reviewed: July 2026

overriding objective

, set out in Rule 1.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, is the core principle that civil courts must deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost — it shapes how every other procedural rule is applied.

Where this comes from

Civil Procedure Rules, Part 1

— sets out the overriding objective and the court's duty to further it.

Make a court claim for money

— gov.uk overview of the small claims process the overriding objective governs.

Why the overriding objective matters if you are representing yourself

The Civil Procedure Rules are a long, detailed rulebook, but every one of those rules exists to serve a single underlying purpose: enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. That purpose is written into Rule 1.1 as the overriding objective, and every judge exercising discretion under any other rule is required to have it in mind.

For someone running their own small claim, this matters because it is not just an abstract legal principle — it is the reason courts often show some flexibility around minor procedural slips by unrepresented parties, keep small claims hearings informal, and actively manage cases rather than leaving it entirely to the parties to fight out every technical point.

What "dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost" involves

• Ensuring both parties can participate fully in proceedings, regardless of whether one side has a solicitor and the other does not.
• Avoiding unnecessary cost, particularly disproportionate to what is actually at stake in the case.
• Dealing with the case in a way that reflects its value, importance, complexity, and the financial position of each party.
• Dealing with the case expeditiously and fairly, and allotting it an appropriate share of the court's resources.
• Active case management.
• The court itself must further these aims — for example, by encouraging alternative dispute resolution and helping parties settle where appropriate.

How it works in practice

A litigant in person files their evidence a few days after the court's deadline because they misunderstood the directions. The other side, represented by solicitors, applies to have the late evidence excluded entirely.

In deciding the application, the court must have regard to the overriding objective — including whether excluding the evidence would be proportionate to a short, unintentional delay, and whether doing so would leave the parties on an genuinely equal footing given one side has professional representation and the other does not. This does not guarantee the litigant in person will be excused, but it gives the court a clear framework for weighing a fair outcome against strict enforcement of the deadline.

• Treating it as a rule you can invoke to excuse anything.
• The overriding objective guides how discretion is exercised — it does not override clear, specific rules or give a free pass for ignoring deadlines altogether.
• Assuming proportionate cost means minimal cost.
• Proportionality is measured against the value and complexity of the case, not against what feels affordable — a genuinely complex small claim can still justify more procedure than a simple one.
• Forgetting it applies to both sides.
• If the other party is running up costs disproportionately or taking unnecessary technical points, you can point to the overriding objective in resisting their approach, not just your own.
• Not raising it when it would help your case.
• Litigants in person sometimes do not realise they can explicitly refer to the overriding objective when asking the court for flexibility or objecting to disproportionate conduct by the other side.

Frequently asked questions

Sources & further reading

• Civil Procedure Rules, Part 1
• Make a court claim for money

Building your own small claim?

Start My Claim helps you understand court procedure in plain English and prepare your paperwork properly.

Last reviewed: July 2026.

References checked against the Civil Procedure Rules as in force on 16 July 2026.

This page is explanatory only and is not legal advice. Start My Claim is self-service software, not a law firm — its tools help you build and run your own case.