 | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| | |
| Item No. | Recommendations | Rules Affected | Amendment Rules | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
| 42. | Recommendation 52 Procedures should be introduced for establishing a court-determined timetable taking into account the reasonable wishes of the parties and the needs of the particular case. |
RHC Order 25 |
Rules 94-97 | ||||
| 43. | Recommendation 53 As the first part of the summons for directions procedure, the parties should be required (i) to complete a questionnaire giving specified information and estimates concerning the case with a view to facilitating case management by the court; and (ii) to propose directions and a timetable to be ordered by the court, preferably put forward by agreement amongst the parties, but with the court affording unrepresented litigants leeway in their observance of these requirements. |
||||||
| 44. | Recommendation 54 Unless it appears to the court that a hearing of the summons for directions is in any event desirable, the court ought to make orders nisi giving such directions and fixing such timetable for the proceedings as it thinks fit in the light of the questionnaire and without a hearing. However, any party who objects to one or more of the directions given, should be entitled to have the summons for directions called on for a hearing. |
||||||
| 45. | Recommendation 55 Where, at the summons for directions stage, the court's view is that a case management conference is desirable, the court should fix a timetable up to the date of the case management conference, that date constituting the first milestone, with further milestones to be fixed when the case management conference is held. |
||||||
| 46. | Recommendation 56 A date for a pre-trial review and the trial date or the trial period should be fixed as milestone dates either at the summons for directions or at any case management conference held. |
||||||
| 47. | Recommendation 57 Where all the parties agree to a variation of time-limits for non-milestone events in the timetable, they may effect such variations by recording the agreement in counter-signed correspondence to be filed as a matter of record with the court, provided that the agreed variations do not involve or necessitate changes to any milestone date. |
||||||
| 48. | Recommendation 58 Where a party cannot secure the agreement of all the other parties for a time extension relating to a non-milestone event, a court should have power to grant such extension only if sufficient grounds are shown and provided that any extension granted does not involve or necessitate changing the trial date or trial period. It should be made clear in a practice direction that where an extension is granted, it is likely to involve an immediate "unless order" specifying a suitable sanction. |
||||||
| 49. | Recommendation 59 A court should have power, on the application of the parties or of its own motion, to give further directions and to vary any aspect of the timetable, including its milestone dates, but it should be made clear in a practice direction that a court would only contemplate changing a milestone date in the most exceptional circumstances. |
||||||
| 50. | Recommendation 60 Where the parties fail to obtain a timetable, the court should not compel them to continue with the proceedings. However, where a pre-trial milestone date has been set, the court should, after giving prior warning, strike out the action provisionally if no one appears at that milestone hearing. A plaintiff should have 3 months to apply to reinstate the action for good reason, failing which the action should stand dismissed and the defendant should automatically be entitled to his costs. Thereafter, the defendant should have a further three months to reinstate any counterclaim, which would also stand dismissed with no order as to costs in default of such application. |
||||||
| 51. | Recommendation 62 The recommendations made in this Final Report regarding timetables and milestones should not apply to cases in the specialist lists save to the extent that the courts in charge of such lists should choose to adopt them in a particular case or by issuing appropriate practice directions and subject to what has previously been recommended regarding the retention of a Running List. |
||||||
|
 |
|
