 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
In fact, the RHC already contain provisions enabling most of the suggested
modifications to full, automatic Peruvian Guano discovery to be made in particular
cases. They can all be agreed between the parties and, in default of agreement, can be
directed by the court on application :-
(a)
Order 24 r 1(2) allows the parties to dispense with or limit discovery in any way
by agreement.
(b)
By O 24 r 2(5), a party can apply for an order limiting discovery to specified
issues; or, where discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the
action, for an order dispensing with discovery entirely or at that stage.
(c)
Order 24 r 4 allows a court dealing with a discovery application to require any
particular issue to be determined before any discovery is made.
(d)
Where little benefit derives from describing documents of the same kind
individually (eg, in relation to inter partes correspondence or routinely
generated invoices or other business records), O 24 r 5 allows listing to be by
bundles, sufficiently described to allow each bundle to be identified. This can
be done without application to the court.
(e)
O 24 r 8 and O 24 r 13 require the court to refuse further discovery or inspection
where they are not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or
for saving costs, thereby introducing procedural economy as a key discretionary
consideration.
(f)
O 24 r 16 gives the court complete discretion as to how compliance with
discovery obligations should be enforced.
|
 |
|