 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Where all the parties agree to a variation of time-limits for non-milestone events in the
timetable, they may effect such variations by recording the agreement in counter-signed
correspondence to be filed as a matter of record with the court, provided that the agreed
variations do not involve or necessitate changes to any milestone date.
Where a party cannot secure the agreement of all the other parties for a time extension
relating to a non-milestone event, a court should have power to grant such extension only if
sufficient grounds are shown and provided that any extension granted does not involve or
necessitate changing the trial date or trial period. It should be made clear in a practice
direction that where an extension is granted, it is likely to involve an immediate "unless
order" specifying a suitable sanction.
A court should have power, on the application of the parties or of its own motion, to give
further directions and to vary any aspect of the timetable, including its milestone dates, but it
should be made clear in a practice direction that a court would only contemplate changing a
milestone date in the most exceptional circumstances.
Where the parties fail to obtain a timetable, the court should not compel them to continue
with the proceedings. However, 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
milestone hearing. A plaintiff should have 3 months to apply to reinstate the action for good
reason, failing which the action should stand dismissed and the defendant should
automatically be entitled to his costs. Thereafter, the defendant should have a further three
months to reinstate any counterclaim, which would also stand dismissed with no order as to
costs in default of such application.
Flexible measures, including the possible establishment of a running list for interlocutory
matters, should be adopted to permit any vacated dates in judicial diaries to be used
efficiently. While the aim should be to maximise use of fixed milestone dates and
progressively to diminish reliance on a Running List, how, when and the extent to which that
aim should be implemented should 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.
The recommendations made in this Final Report regarding timetables and milestones should
not apply to cases in the specialist lists save to the extent that the judges in charge of such
lists should choose to adopt them in a particular case or by issuing appropriate practice
directions and subject to what has previously been recommended regarding the retention of a
Running List.
|
 |
|