 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Dealing with the concern as to costs first, we do not agree that giving a respondent and
interested parties the option to acknowledge service would lead to increased costs.
(a)
As stated above, although served with the application for leave, the respondent
can still choose not to respond and to wait and see whether the court gives the
applicant leave. Thus, a party is free to adopt a course which involves no extra
costs. The respondent retains full rights to resist the application at the
substantive hearing if leave is granted. Interested parties are in the same
position.
(b)
However, the respondent and interested parties are given a choice and can, if
they wish, file an acknowledgment of service in which they state their position
in summary form. A respondent may choose to put forward what he considers
to be cogent reasons why leave should not be given. Since the procedure will
continue generally to involve a determination without any oral hearing, the costs
of so doing will not be great and the money may be thought well worth
spending if it helps to ensure a refusal of leave.
(c)
From the court's point of view, it will often be helpful to have an indication of
the basis of the respondent's resistance to the application when deciding
whether to give leave.
(d)
If the applicant seeks and obtains an oral hearing as to leave, it can be made
clear (as occurs under the CPR
) that the respondent and interested parties
need not attend unless directed to do so by the court or unless they should
choose to attend. They will therefore be able to opt out of the leave hearing,
even if it is conducted orally, and only become involved if the applicant
succeeds. But they will also have a choice to get involved at the stage of an oral
leave hearing if they so choose.
Notes
|
 |
|