The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 and the Practice Direction Update took effect on 6 April 2026. The creation of CPR 31.12A will be of particular importance for commercial disputes.

CPR 31.12A gives the Court the power to order a party to:

"request any person to produce for disclosure and inspection any document which may support the case or adversely affect the case of any party to the proceedings.”

 The Court thus has a broad power to order a party to request documents from another, notwithstanding that they are not a party, where these documents may support or adversely affect the case of a party to the proceedings. To understand the potential significance of this new power, it is important to consider why it has been introduced.

The introduction of CPR 31.12A was in response to McLaren Indy LLC v Alpha Racing USA LLC [2025] EWHC 1825 (Comm). At trial, a witness statement referred to a variety of apparently relevant contracts that were not in the control of a party to the proceedings. Following the decision in Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2904 (Comm), the High Court had concluded that it did not have the power to order a party to request documents from a third party. The position, as it was, therefore meant that a Court could do little to compel a party to obtain relevant documents when these were in the control of a third party.

CPR 31.12A supplements the traditionally narrow CPR 31.17 (the formal route for non-party disclosure) and provides a clearer mechanism for obtaining relevant documents that are not in the control of a party to proceedings. This may become particularly relevant in areas such as housing and company disputes, where important documents are held by local authorities or data processors. Whilst orders pursuant to CPR 31.12A will be subject to the usual arguments about proportionality and data protection, this rule does potentially provide the Court with a more efficient, effective means of facilitating disclosure.

The key question that remains is whether this rule will aid, or hinder, the litigation process. Whilst the rule does not include a necessity threshold, as contained in CPR 31.17, it also does not compel the third party to disclose documents. Further, it remains to be seen if this rule will be exploited by litigators to imply that there is now an obligation on parties to request or take steps towards obtaining documents in the control of a non-party. Evidential issues may also arise if the documents held by the third party do not compliment the position taken by a party.

Third party disclosure can increase litigation risks and the current lack of guidance concerning the application of CPR 31.12A may result in parties being more reticent in their pursuit of documentation held by a non-party.

The rule has the potential to streamline the litigation process but the extent to which it will have a meaningful impact on disclosure obligations is currently unclear.