Proposed changes to High Court Act 1991

The Justice and Home Affairs (Reform and Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill 2025, published in December 2025, proposes key changes to the High Court Act 1991. Several are highlighted here.

Attendance of witnesses – new power to issue direction

Under clause 33B(1) of the Bill, if a High Court judge is satisfied that any person: “(a)… is likely to be able to give material evidence, or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence, in any proceedings in the High Court; and (b) that the person will not voluntarily attend as a witness or produce the document…”, the judge: “shall give a direction to that person requiring that person to attend before the court… to give evidence or to produce the document…”.

Attendance of witnesses – arrest/committal powers

The Bill contains new arrest and committal powers:

• clause 33B(2) enables a judge, instead of issuing a direction, to issue a warrant to arrest the person in question and bring them before such court at a time or place specified in the warrant, if: “satisfied by evidence on oath of the matters in subsection (1), and also that it is probable that a direction… would not procure the attendance of the person…”;
• under clause 33B(3), if the person fails to attend before the High Court to answer a direction, if the court is: “satisfied by evidence on oath that the person is likely to be able to give material evidence or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence… and (b) it is proved on oath, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that the person has been duly served, and reasonable sum paid or tendered… for costs and expenses; and (c) it appears to the court that there is no just excuse”, the court may issue an arrest warrant. A related criminal offence is also proposed at clause 33B(4); and
• under clause 33B(5), the court may commit a person to custody for up to 7 days (or until the person sooner gives evidence or produces the document or thing) if a person attending or brought before the High Court: “refuses without just excuse to be sworn or give evidence, or to produce any document or thing”.

Note for practitioners: Rules 8.32-8.37 already give the High Court powers to issue a witness summons. This Bill proposes an altogether more far-reaching regime to compel evidence. Whether the proposed new powers strike the right balance, or potentially risk being abused in today’s hyper aggressive litigation environment (see Coren Law Update, Deemsters’ Warning on Excessive Written Material), will no doubt be keenly debated, as the Bill progresses through Tynwald.

Electronic communications in proceedings

Clause 25A(1) of the Bill enables High Court Rules to make provision: “(a) authorising or requiring the use of electronic communications for the purposes of giving specified information in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, proceedings; (b) specifying technical standards to be met in relation to the method and manner of giving such information; (c) specifying the effect of giving (or not giving) information in accordance with standards under paragraph (b)”.

Rules may also provide: “as to how a requirement for a signature in or in connection with the giving of such information is to be met” (clause 25A(2)).

Note for practitioners: Schedule 2.1 of the RHCJ 2009 already provides for electronic communications and filing of documents. Electronic signatures are currently provided for by s 5 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 and Regulation 6 of the Electronic Transactions (General) Regulations 2017. However, paragraph 1 of Schedule 2.1 above (still) refers entirely, in 2025, to filing by fax. Technology relating to filing documents has plainly moved on since introduction of the RHCJ 2009. For example, there is now a new practice direction on e-disclosure, PD 05/25, as of October 2025 (see separate Coren Law Update). As the Court gears up to introduce the new Courts Case Management System, the proposed new clause will enable the Rules to be appropriately updated.

Representation of companies in Small Claims

Clause 95(3) of the Bill seeks to amend s 16A(2) of the High Court Act 1991 to enable High Court Rules to be made to permit litigation conduct and representation by a company, in the Small Claims Procedure, by a company director or employee, in addition (as currently permitted) to a company officer or member.

Note for practitioners: This change is uncontroversial. In this context, however, the rule in KPMG v Chaldan (2DS 2001/011) (01.05.01) as to claims by a company requiring to be initiated through an advocate is still causing issues in practice (see Ballacorey Wheat Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd (2DS 2022/32-34) (04.04.23).

Overall the proposed arrest and committal powers to compel evidence may prompt the most debate.