NSW Supreme Court Personal Injury Litigation: What the New Case Management Regime means for Insurers
-
03 November 2026 03 November 2026
-
Asia Pacific
-
Regulatory movement
-
Insurance
The updated Practice Note SC CL 1 introduces earlier judicial case management, greater emphasis on hearing readiness and more prescriptive pre-trial requirements, with practical implications for the management of litigation for insureds.
A new approach to case management
The updated Practice Note SC CL 01 (PN) introduces a more structured approach to case management for new proceedings in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of NSW aiming to reduce the time during which matters are case managed following commencement. This emphasis was reinforced by the Honourable Justice Nicholas Chen at the Court's Briefing to the Profession on 29 October 2026, observing in relation to compliance with Court orders, that "compliance is a matter of obligation, not discretion.”
New matters will now proceed through Directions Hearing and Judicial Case Management (JCM) Review/s at fixed points in their lifecycle, with the Court seeking to allocate a Hearing date at the first listing before a Judge to promote prompt preparation by parties, readiness and certainty.
For insurers, this means that key decisions about liability and quantum (particularly, the sources and scope of evidence and identification of lay and expert witnesses) as well as settlement prospects and Hearing strategy, will need to be made earlier so claims are sufficiently developed to meet the Court’s defined milestones and support informed decision making.
Key changes at a glance
|
Practice Note SC CL 01 |
Updated procedures |
Practical implications for insurers |
|
Procedural listings |
First Directions Hearing: three months after commencement of proceedings.
First JCM Review: ordinarily the first available date after one year, unless brought forward. |
Claims must progress against defined milestones, requiring earlier consideration of liability, quantum, evidence and resolution.
A JCM Review is a planned milestone, not merely a response to a delay in the proceedings. |
|
Hearings |
At the first JCM Review, each party must be ready to accept a Hearing date and provide all relevant availabilities and a duration estimate. At the Briefing to the Profession, Justice Chen provided further guidance on anticipated listing timeframes, indicating that parties should expect:
Matters with Hearing estimates under five days generally remain with the Registrar but may be referred to JCM if not Hearing-ready after one year. |
Develop liability, quantum and settlement strategy and set reserves earlier and brief Counsel well in advance of a Hearing to obtain and ensure availability.
Expected Hearing length assumes greater significance. |
|
Preparation before Court |
Five working days before the first Directions Hearing, parties are to provide proposed orders and prescribed information.
Five working days before JCM, parties to provide pleadings, a one-page summary of the nature of the proceedings, proposed orders and other relevant material. |
Legal representatives should seek early instructions from insurers on procedure, defence strategy and key issues in dispute to ensure preparedness for the Directions and JCM Review. |
|
ADR |
Assess suitability for mediation and other ADR as early as practicable. |
Develop evidence and reserves and obtain authority early enough for meaningful settlement discussions. |
|
Personal injury damages |
Plaintiff’s Schedule of Damages is due 20 working days before Hearing; response from Defendant/s, with reasons and alternatives, 10 working days before; and the final schedule seven working days before. |
Clear instructions to be obtained on disputed heads of damage, alternatives and reasons before Hearing.
Defendant lawyers/insurers should explore the potential for agreement on quantum, if liability is the primary issue in dispute, to avoid incurring unnecessary Hearing costs. Even if a matter is incapable of settlement within an ADR event it presents an opportunity for the parties to have productive without prejudice discussions engaging with quantum to identify any heads of damage capable of agreement and the basis for any ongoing dispute (for further instruction). |
|
Hearing preparation |
Requirements cover expert conclaves, issues and facts, chronology, openings, trial plans and Court Books.
A Plaintiff’s Court Book is due 15 working days before Hearing; any supplement is due from Defendant/s 10 working days before. |
Hearing preparation is more prescriptive and begins earlier. This reinforces the need for:- (i) timely and meaningful settlement attempts by the parties to avoid hearing preparation costs; and (ii) cost protective measures such as Offers of Compromise, Calderbank offers or Notices of Offer of Contribution. |
|
Compliance & delays |
Parties should attempt to reach agreement on timetable revisions and address non-compliance or remedial orders at JCM Reviews. |
Parties need to be monitoring Court timetable requirements closely and proactive in remedying any timetable non-compliances and will be under greater scrutiny in the event of a breach. Whilst it is yet to be seen, and as a potential progression, the Court may also be stricter in requiring parties to make formal applications for leave to file late pleadings, join third party/ies or rely on late evidence, which would naturally increase costs. |
|
Employer joinder |
At the Directions hearing, and if an injury occurred during employment and the employer is not a party to the proceedings, the Plaintiff must confirm with the Court whether they intend to join the employer to the proceedings so that an appropriate order can be made.
|
In order to join an employer to proceedings, a Plaintiff must meet the applicable Whole Person Impairment threshold and satisfy the Pre-Filing Requirements. Plaintiffs are now under increased pressure to properly prosecute any work injury damages claims, which have been a major cause of delay in the Common Law Division.
Defendant lawyers/insurers should consider employer involvement and have/provide joinder instructions before the Directions. |
Practical takeaways
While the changes have different procedural impacts, collectively they require earlier, more active progression of proceedings and a claims management that supports timely, informed decisions:
-
Front-loading claims investigation and strategy: Insurers may have less scope to defer investigation and strategic decisions while proceedings develop. Get ahead of the claim by identifying key issues and actions pre litigation to guide future strategy and further investigation.
-
Earlier expert and evidence planning: Early consideration should be given to the expert liability and quantum evidence required to properly assess the claim. Plan for expert evidence and requirements before time, including expert availability, evidentiary gaps and briefing material, to avoid delays in progressing or resolving the claim and adverse costs.
-
Settlement strategy and authority: A more defined litigation timetable may bring settlement decisions into focus sooner. Insurers should be promptly provided with a recommended claims reserve and insurers should stay settlement ready by keeping settlement prospects, information and authority under review and current so appropriate resolution opportunities can be pursued swiftly.
-
Keep pace with the Court: Ensure active claims management by aligning internal processes with the litigation timetable and maintaining regular coordination between insurer, insured, defendant lawyers and other stakeholders so evidence, instructions and authority are available when required.
Concluding comments
The updated Practice Note is not just a change to the procedural timetable. Timely and more structured judicial case management requires insurers to make key decisions on evidence, experts, settlement and hearing strategy sooner, highlighting the need for early preparation and efficient claims advancement.
However, with the intention to promptly dispose of proceedings, the updated Practice Note should also see resolution dates for more complex and long tail claims in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court NSW reducing over time and thereto the lifecycle of such claims for insurers.
End
