 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
While almost everyone was in favour of the parties being given scope to deal
consensually with procedural issues between any timetabled milestones,
a
significant number of respondents were not in favour of having milestones intended to
be largely immovable. They wanted the court to be able to deal with such milestones
flexibly.
The Bar Association, however, was in favour of both timetables and
largely immovable milestones, subject to the details being fleshed out after proper
consultation.
Several suggested that one should not fix all the milestones at the
outset, but set them in phases, thus enhancing flexibility. Some solicitors' firms
suggested that timetables would not work unless supported by effective case
management. The Working Party considers many of the suggestions received to have
merit and has sought to take them into account in its recommendations. It also bears
in mind the anxiety that has been expressed by many respondents to the consultation
against introducing reforms likely to increase front-loaded costs, previously
discussed.
Notes
The High Court masters had some reservations.
This was the view of the BSCPI, the Law Society (in so far as one had a timetable and milestones),
one set of barristers' chambers and the DOJ. The High Court masters were in doubt as to what
events should be used as milestones.
So was the APAA.
At Sections 5 and 9.
|
 |
|