Jeremy John Langley & Anor v Sophie Anne Langley & Anor

An order made on a party’s application remains a response to that application even where the application is decided on paper. It is not an order made by the court on its own initiative, so the reconsideration mechanism in CPR rule 3.3(5) is unavailable.

Under the current CPR rule 23.8, a party may challenge an order made without a hearing only where the affected parties had no opportunity to make representations about the substance of the application. Earlier authority based on a former deeming provision does not apply under the amended rules.

The first defendant sought to stay a contentious probate claim pending a proposed citation, or alternatively to strike out the claim. The application was dismissed on the papers on 10 December 2025.

She then requested reconsideration under CPR rule 3.3(5), arguing that the order had been made without a hearing. The court considered whether the order was made on its own initiative and whether the current CPR rule 23.8 provided another route to challenge it.

1. The application for reconsideration was dismissed as totally without merit. The order of 10 December 2025 had been made in response to the first defendant’s own application, evidence and draft order. The fact that it was determined on paper did not make it an order made on the court’s own initiative. CPR rule 3.3(5) was therefore not engaged.
2. Collier v Williams [2006] 1 WLR 1945 distinguished between a direct argument, under which a paper decision on an application was not an own-initiative order, and an indirect argument based on the former deeming provision in Practice Direction 23. The direct reasoning remained unimpaired. The indirect route no longer succeeded because the former provision had been removed and CPR rule 23.8 now contained its own challenge mechanism.
3. Under CPR rule 23.8(3), the right to apply to set aside, vary or stay an order made without a hearing arises only where the affected parties had no opportunity to make representations about the substance of the application. That condition was not satisfied. The first defendant had supplied a substantial application notice, witness statement, exhibits and draft order, and had fully addressed the substance of the application.
4. The same analysis applied to the request for reconsideration itself. Although CPR rule 23.8(1)(c) permitted disposal without a hearing, the first defendant had had an opportunity to make representations. No right to set aside, vary or stay the order arose.
5. The proper route of challenge was an appeal under CPR Part 52. The application was dismissed.

The judgment concerned a first-instance procedural application. The court had previously dismissed the first defendant’s application on 10 December 2025. The subsequent request for reconsideration was dismissed in this judgment. Any challenge was stated to lie by appeal under CPR Part 52.