The Online Procedure (Core Rules and Pilot Schemes) Rules 2026

Summary of responses

The Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) received 28 responses to its consultation on the draft Online Procedure (Core Rules and Pilot Schemes) Rules 2026. Responses were submitted by members of the judiciary, legal representative bodies, advice sector organisations, service providers, public interest groups, ombudsman bodies, technology and online dispute resolution providers, user and consumer groups, and business organisations.

Overall, respondents were broadly supportive of the purpose and direction of the draft Rules. They welcomed the move towards a concise, principles‑based framework that can support clear, accessible and proportionate online proceedings. Respondents also offered constructive feedback on areas where further clarification, refinement or supporting materials would strengthen usability and confidence in the Rules.

The key themes raised across the consultation responses are summarised below.

Purpose, scope and relationship with existing rules

Respondents supported the aim of creating a coherent set of core Online Procedure Rules, while emphasising the importance of explaining clearly how they operate alongside existing jurisdiction‑specific rules such as the Civil Procedure Rules, Family Procedure Rules and Tribunal Procedure Rules. Many highlighted the importance of clear signposting and online presentation to help users understand which rules apply to their case, and which requirements may sit within practice directions or pilot schemes.

Simplicity, structure and drafting

Respondents welcomed the efforts towards clarity and accessibility in the draft Rules, with some providing constructive suggestions to further improve the drafting. Several emphasised that simplicity of language should also be supported by a clear structure and consistent terminology, particularly around key procedural steps such as starting proceedings, service, and notification. Respondents encouraged minimising unnecessary cross‑referencing and providing plain‑English explanations where possible.

What users can expect in online proceedings

Many responses focused on the need to ensure that users understand each stage of online proceedings, including what actions are required, how information will be provided, and what confirmation they will receive. Respondents noted that clear expression of the expectations on parties will be essential to ensure both confidence in the rules and an equitable process  for both represented and unrepresented users.

Digital inclusion, support and paper alternatives

Ensuring accessibility for all users was a strong theme. Respondents stressed the need for assisted‑digital support, reasonable adjustments, and clear routes for users who cannot access or use online services. They highlighted the importance of maintaining workable paper alternatives, supported uploading processes, and safeguards for those who are digitally excluded or experiencing short-term system outages, or connectivity issues.

Early resolution, dispute resolution and the duties of the parties

Respondents generally supported provisions encouraging early and proportionate resolution. Some cautioned, however, that certain language could be interpreted as requiring settlement rather than encouraging exploration of resolution options. Suggestions for improvement included aligning terminology with familiar principles used in existing procedural frameworks.

Digital service and hearings

Respondents asked for greater clarity on how digital notifications interact with traditional service concepts, including safeguards for users who may not reliably receive online notifications. They also sought further information regarding hearing formats, notice requirements, and technical standards for remote hearings.

Transparency and open justice

Several respondents emphasised the importance of maintaining transparency in online proceedings, including ensuring that public access to hearings and decisions continues to be supported where appropriate and consistent with existing jurisdiction‑specific laws and practices.

Technical standards, data and user testing

Respondents welcomed the inclusion of digital and data standards, and encouraged robust user testing, particularly involving litigants in person. They also highlighted the need for clear integration with third‑party service providers and appropriate data‑collection mechanisms to support evaluation and continuous improvement.

Pilot schemes: flexibility, safeguards and evaluation

Many respondents supported the proposed use of pilot schemes to test and refine new procedures. They emphasised the importance of clear communication about when a pilot applies, how it differs from core rules, and how pilots will be evaluated. Respondents encouraged transparent publication of findings and user‑experience data.

Proportionality, costs and small business perspectives

Business and consumer groups welcomed the focus on proportionality but asked for further clarity on cost impacts, especially for small organisations. Consistent, familiar terminology was encouraged to reduce friction with existing practice.

Specific drafting points raised

Respondents provided detailed suggestions relating to time‑calculation rules, delegated judicial functions, open‑justice terminology, and the need for embedded guidance presented in a user‑friendly format. Respondents suggested the rules needed greater clarity around duties placed on parties and the powers of the court or tribunal.

Conclusion

Responses indicated broad support for the objectives of the draft Rules: to create simple, accessible and effective Online Procedure Rules that promote fair, proportionate and efficient digital justice. Respondents emphasised several key areas for refinement, including integration with existing procedural frameworks, strong digital‑inclusion measures, clarity on service and hearing mechanics, careful use of language around dispute resolution and transparent governance of pilot schemes. The OPRC will consider these points as it continues to develop the Rules and supporting materials for publication.