 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
In relation to cases that have become dormant, the Working Party recommends :-
(a)
that where the parties have not progressed to the point of obtaining a timetable,
the court should not compel them to continue with the proceedings;
(b)
but 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
hearing.
A plaintiff should then be given 3 months to apply to reinstate the action for good
reason, failing which the action should stand dismissed and the defendant should
automatically become entitled to his costs. In cases where the defendant has filed a
counterclaim, he should have an additional grace period of 3 months from the expiry
of the plaintiff's grace period to apply to reinstate his counterclaim. If he fails to do so,
the counterclaim should also stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
The ultimate aim should be for the use of milestone dates and the progressive
diminution of cases on the Running List. But how, when and to what extent that aim
should be implemented raises practical and administrative issues which must be
worked out by the Chief Judge of the High Court and the court administration in
consultation with members of the profession and other interested parties.
In the meantime, flexible measures, such as the possible establishment of a running list
for interlocutory matters, should be adopted to permit any vacated dates in judicial
diaries to be efficiently utilised.
As indicated in the next section, specialist lists should be accorded a high level of
procedural autonomy. This should apply in relation to the timetabling procedures they
adopt.
|
 |
|