Communications with the Court – new Rule 2.63

New Rule sets out the do’s and don’ts of writing to the Manx High Court 

A common law rule prohibiting one party or their representative from writing to the Court without copying in the other side is itself nothing new.

For example, in Zuma’s Choice Pet Products Ltd & another v Azumi Ltd & others [2017] EWCA Civ 2133, Floyd LJ stated (at § 8)

“… as all practitioners know, it is improper for a litigant to attempt to correspond with the court on a “private and confidential” basis. Communications having any relevance to a case being conducted inter partes need to be sent to the other side no later than the time when they are sent to the judge. Unless there are special reasons to do so… the court does not take any step adverse to a party without allowing that party the opportunity to be heard. If it is possible to do so, a judge who receives such a communication should return it unread, explaining shortly to the litigant the impropriety of sending unilateral correspondence”

In April 2019, CPR 39.8 codified this common law rule and gave the English Court the power to sanction those not complying with it.

This rule was considered by the Administrative Court in R (on the application of Jasseh) v SSHD [2025] EWHC 47 (Admin). A Government Legal Department lawyer had written a “Strictly Confidential” e-mail to the Court about an immigration removal. At § 15, Chamberlain J held:

“15.CPR 39.8(1) reflects the fundamental common law principle that a party has a right to know the case against him and the evidence on which it is based. This is an essential ingredient of natural justice: see e.g. Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34… at [12]. The situations in which the law permits exceptions from this principle are limited. As was pointed out in Al Rawi itself, public interest immunity is not a true exception, because a claim to public interest immunity, if upheld, has the effect of excluding the evidence which attracts immunity so that the court cannot take it into account when determining the case. Statutory closed material procedures are exceptions, but they typically have detailed safeguards, which are incorporated into the CPR. In these cases, CPR 39.8(7) would apply. There are no special procedural rules for immigration removal cases. The applicable regime is therefore to be found in CPR 39.8(1)-(3).

16. Once proceedings have been filed, GLD’s client is a “party to proceedings” and CPR 39.8(1) applies. Principle dictates that this rule should also apply where proceedings have been threatened. … [P]rivate communications with the court on matters of substance or procedure have implications for the principle of natural justice. CPR 39.8(3) recognises that there may be exceptions to the rule in CPR 39.8(1), but the exceptions must be narrowly confined.

17. The email sent on the eve of the hearing in this case plainly contravened CPR 39.8(1)…”.

Now, from 23rd February 2026, the Isle of Man Court will have its own similar powers.

Introduced by the Deemsters via the Rules of the High Court of Justice (Amendment) 2026, the new Rule 2.63(1)-(2) makes clear that any communication by a party or parties to the Court “on a matter of substance or procedure” – whether in paper or electronic format – must be copied to other parties or their representatives.

A written communication required to be copied to the other party or representative must state on its face that it is being copied to that person or persons, stating their identity and capacity (Rule 2.63(4)).

The rule does not apply to “purely routine, uncontentious and administrative” communications (Rule 2.63(2)) or if there is “a compelling reason for not doing so, and provided that any reason is clearly stated” (Rule 2.63(3)).

Communications not complying with Rule 2.63(4) will be returned to sender without being considered by the Court (Rule 2.63(5)).

Rule 2.63(6) empowers to the Court, subject to hearing the parties, to: “impose sanctions or exercise its other case management powers under Part 7” to a party failing to comply with Rule 2.63(1).

Rule 2.63(1) does not apply to communications authorised by a rule or PD to be sent to the Court without at the same time being provided to the other party or parties or their representatives (Rule 2.63(7)).

Note for practitioners: The new Rule 2.63 is a reminder of the need to copy in the other side to communications to Court. Parties in default now risk incurring sanctions.

Disclaimer: professional advice should be sought before applying any information in a given case.

For advice on Isle of Man civil procedure, contact Coren Law.

See also Coren Law’s Isle of Man civil procedure portal: Click On | Coren Law.