England and Wales · Court of Appeal and Supreme Court
When must parties review the appeal and agree bundle contents?
PD52C 21 Part 1 sets 49 days after the listing-window notification date for the later case review and agreement of core and supplementary appeal-bundle contents. An earlier prompt review after permission remains separately required.
- Period
- Prompt review after permission and the separate later 49-day listing-window review and agreement stage
- Trigger
- Date of the listing window notification
- Rule
- PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9)
PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9) and its official supporting provisions were retained on October 8, 2026. This review concerns when must parties review the appeal and agree bundle contents, not an earlier rule edition or a different appeal route.
Source guide · No automated date
Check the applicable procedure
The later forty-nine-day review is a listing-window milestone. The first case review occurs promptly after permission and before skeleton lodging. This timetable stage concerns resolution or refinement of appeal issues and agreement on hearing-bundle contents. It does not replace the earlier permission-stage review.
PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9)What lawyers say
5.0“The platform is really easy to use.”
Michael B.Employment litigation attorney · California
“The Evidence Record saved us time with our insurance on bankruptcy matters.”
MariaBankruptcy and commercial attorney · London, UK
“The most up-to-date service we could find.”
Li ChenArbitration practitioner · Singapore
When must parties review the appeal and agree bundle contents?
PD52C 21 Part 1 sets 49 days after the listing-window notification date for the later case review and agreement of core and supplementary appeal-bundle contents. An earlier prompt review after permission remains separately required.
Responsible actor. All appeal parties.
The later forty-nine-day review is a listing-window milestone. The first case review occurs promptly after permission and before skeleton lodging.
No. Paragraph 27(6) separately requires prompt review after permission and before skeleton lodging.
This timetable stage concerns resolution or refinement of appeal issues and agreement on hearing-bundle contents. It does not replace the earlier permission-stage review.
PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9)How does this provision count time?
- PD52C 21 Part 1 sets 49 days after the listing-window notification date for the later case review and agreement of core and supplementary appeal-bundle contents. An earlier prompt review after permission remains separately required.
- The timetable identifies resolution or refinement of the issues to be decided at the appeal.
- Parties should complete the review and agree indexes and contents under paragraph 27. Unagreed material needs the separate permission and hearing-bundle process.
For PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9), exclude the established starting day and count the next 49 calendar days. CPR 2.8(3)(b) does not exclude an additional fixed compliance day. This is the ordinary fixed-after branch, not a minimum interval between two specified events.
For PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9), do not infer extra time for interparty service, agreement or a hearing requirement from a closed court office. Establish the actual act, any minimum hearing interval and the applicable direction.
PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9)Which facts prevent one automatic date?
The later forty-nine-day review is a listing-window milestone. The first case review occurs promptly after permission and before skeleton lodging. This timetable stage concerns resolution or refinement of appeal issues and agreement on hearing-bundle contents. It does not replace the earlier permission-stage review.
Permission was granted on September 30,2026 and the listing-window letter is dated October 8. The parties have both an earlier prompt review and the later agreement stage. PD52C 21 Part 1 sets 49 days after the listing-window notification date for the later case review and agreement of core and supplementary appeal-bundle contents. An earlier prompt review after permission remains separately required. Parties should complete the review and agree indexes and contents under paragraph 27. Unagreed material needs the separate permission and hearing-bundle process.
The ordinary 49-day endpoint associated with PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9) falls during a weekend or the Registry Christmas closure, and no contrary direction is yet established. For PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9), do not infer extra time for interparty service, agreement or a hearing requirement from a closed court office. Establish the actual act, any minimum hearing interval and the applicable direction. Establish the actual filing and service branch before relying on one deadline for this procedure.
Permission was granted before the listing-window letter, but the parties propose postponing all case review to the forty-nine-day stage. No. Paragraph 27(6) separately requires prompt review after permission and before skeleton lodging. The later forty-nine-day review is a listing-window milestone. The first case review occurs promptly after permission and before skeleton lodging.
Which conditions and exceptions apply?
- Established procedural branch
- This timetable stage concerns resolution or refinement of appeal issues and agreement on hearing-bundle contents. It does not replace the earlier permission-stage review.
- Required completion
- Parties should complete the review and agree indexes and contents under paragraph 27. Unagreed material needs the separate permission and hearing-bundle process.
- Related procedure distinction
- The later forty-nine-day review is a listing-window milestone. The first case review occurs promptly after permission and before skeleton lodging.
- This timetable stage concerns resolution or refinement of appeal issues and agreement on hearing-bundle contents. It does not replace the earlier permission-stage review.
- The later forty-nine-day review is a listing-window milestone. The first case review occurs promptly after permission and before skeleton lodging.
What must the responsible actor complete?
Questions about this procedure
When must parties review the appeal and agree bundle contents?
Does the forty-nine-day date allow parties to delay all review?
No. Paragraph 27(6) separately requires prompt review after permission and before skeleton lodging.
PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9)What should the case review try to achieve?
The timetable identifies resolution or refinement of the issues to be decided at the appeal.
PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9)What bundle agreement is required at this stage?
Parties must agree the contents of the core appeal bundle and any supplementary bundle.
PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9)Does the hearing date start the forty-nine days?
No. Part 1 uses the listing-window notification letter date.
PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9)Does agreement mean every proposed document must be included?
Paragraph 27 controls necessary bundle content and has a separate process for unagreed documents.
PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9)Is agreement an act at the court office for automatic rollover?
No. The court-office extension does not automatically postpone this interparty agreement milestone.
CPR 2.8, calculation of timeOfficial sources and review
Provisions used (3)
| Provision | Purpose |
|---|---|
| PD52C 21 and 27(6)–(9) | Check the identified procedure, event, counting rule or qualification |
| CPR 2.8, calculation of time | Check the identified procedure, event, counting rule or qualification |
| CPR 52.15, variation of time | Check the identified procedure, event, counting rule or qualification |