 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Taking everything stated above into account, it is the Working Party's view that it
would be unwise to recommend total abolition of the Running List immediately for all
cases across the board. It will take some time for the proposed new timetabling
system to work smoothly and for the flexible filling of vacated dates without recourse
to a Running List to be efficiently operated. While the Running List can and should
be replaced by court-directed timetabling in most cases, it may be wise initially to
retain a Running List for all or some cases in a particular specialist list, such as the
Personal Injuries list, in order to have in reserve, a pool of pending trial work to take
up any slack in a judge's diary resulting from late settlements or adjournments.
Different considerations apply to interlocutory applications. There may be much to be
said for the establishment of a running list for interlocutory applications or
interlocutory appeals. Such hearings generally do not involve witnesses or experts or
the parties, so that they are not inconvenienced by being kept "on hold" when the
application is warned. Such hearings are also less complex than trials and so more
easily mastered by fresh counsel who may be asked to take on the hearing where
counsel originally instructed is not free when the application is called on. They are
also more easily mastered by the judge and less dependent on either prior knowledge
of the case or on specialist knowledge since the points tend to be procedural.
In the Working Party's view, while endorsing as the ultimate aim, the maximum use
of milestone dates and the progressive diminution of cases on the Running List, how,
when and the extent to which that aim should be implemented raises pre-eminently
practical and administrative issues which should be left to 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.
|
 |
|