 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
For this approach to be adopted, the way that interlocutory applications are listed and
managed would have to be changed.
(a)
The applicant would be required to issue and serve the summons seeking the
relevant interlocutory order, accompanied by any evidence relied on. From this
point onwards, automatic directions laid down in the rules and practice
directions should apply, subject to the parties agreeing to adopt a different
timetable.
(b)
The applicant would not be given a return day in the present sense since the
application may not require an oral hearing. Instead, a date which we might call
for present purposes "an order date" would be given instead. This is the date
when the master will either hand down the orders made, having determined the
summons without a hearing, or hand down an order that the summons be
adjourned for an oral hearing on a specified date before either a master or a
judge in chambers.
(c)
The order date will be set to accommodate automatic directions applicable to
interlocutory applications which will be laid down in rules and practice
directions. The periods allowed for the filing of evidence, skeleton arguments,
costs statements, etc, will be provided for after consultation with the legal
profession and interested parties. The periods eventually fixed may obviously
differ, but for illustrative purposes, the automatic directions might allow say, 14
days from service of the summons for evidence to be filed by the respondent;
say, another 14 days for any evidence from the applicant in reply; perhaps a
further 7 days each to allow the parties to put in sequential skeleton arguments
and costs statements (to permit a possible summary assessment of costs). On
this example, the order date fixed on the issuing of the summons would fall
shortly after 42 days from the date of issue to allow for the aforesaid steps to be
taken. In some cases, the directions may require a shorter overall period, eg,
where no evidence needs to be filed.
|
 |
|