The issues of the status of good faith of participants in civil proceedings as an independent principle are investigated, taking into account the degree of its legal regulation and the existence of a legislative prohibition to abuse civil procedural rights. An outline is given of the state of development of the problem in the scientific literature, as well as legislative regulation in procedural legislation.It has been argued that the modernization of civil procedural law in some way influenced the modification of a competitive model of civil justice, based on its tasks - fair, impartial and timely consideration and resolution of civil cases with the aim of effective protection of violated, unrecognized or challenged rights, freedoms or interests of individuals, rights and the interests of legal entities, the interests of the state. This factor has led to a rethinking of the principles of civil justice as a cornerstone of the legal regulation of civil procedural legal relations, Considering that in the competitive model of civil justice, the implementation of the procedural rights and procedural obligations by participants in civil proceedings is essential in the presence of the provision contained in part 1 article 44 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which provides that participants in the trial and their representatives should use procedural rights in good faith and abuse of procedural rights is prohibited.The author proves that the analysis of procedural legislation and scientific literature on the outlined problem gives grounds to assert that in the system of principles of civil justice the principle of good faith of participants in civil justice has independent status, structural content and defines: 1) the prohibition of abuse of procedural rights; 2) the requirement of honest performance of procedural duties; 3) the prohibition of contradictory behavior of the parties, or the rule of procedural estoppel; 4) the prohibition of other illegal impediments to the administration of justice (for example, the prohibition of misleading the court, the prohibition of the use of lost procedural powers, etc.).