 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The trap into which the misguided are likely to be led would involve regarding the
overriding objective as providing all the answers and, because of its "overriding"
character, as permitting specific procedural provisions to be ignored or given
insufficient weight. This would be a fundamental error since such rules will in many
cases have been refined over the years to deal fairly with the specific procedural issue
at hand. To quote from the White Book once more :-
"...... such relevant law and practice, which will often have its own objectives (not
inconsistent with the overriding objective) designed to do justice
expressly or impliedly
‘built-in', should be given its full and proper effect and, in being applied, should not be
distorted or diminished by strained attempts to bring into consideration selected aspects of the
overriding objective as listed in r.1.1(2)."
These considerations carry all more weight where the reforms are to proceed by way
of amendment and where the RHC, supplemented by the case-law, are to be retained.
In the Working Party's view, it would be useful to introduce a rule expressly
acknowledging as legitimate aims of judicial case management :-
increased cost-effectiveness in the court's procedures;
economies and proportionality in the way cases are mounted and tried;
the expeditious disposal of cases;
greater equality between parties;
facilitating settlement; and,
distributing the court's resources fairly
always subject to recognition that the primary aim of case management should be to
secure the just resolution of the parties' dispute in accordance with their substantive
rights.
It would be wise to avoid suggesting that any such rule has an "overriding" character,
to avoid encouraging over-elaborate and misguided reliance being placed on it. It
should be made clear that such a rule merely makes explicit what are implicit
objectives which "underlie" specific rules of the RHC, supporting the internal logic of
such rules. Such specific rules should accordingly continue to demand intelligent
application informed, but not overridden, by the underlying principles.
|
 |
|