| 254. |
The case management
rules may therefore be designed, for example to put into effect a procedural system with
features like the following :- |
|
|
| 254.1 |
A judge or master
designated to act as procedural judge is given an early look at the nature of the case as
disclosed in a written form filed by the parties. The form indicates the features of the
dispute (its nature, the scope of relevant documents, the number of likely witnesses, any
need for experts, etc). The parties are also required to state on the form what directions
they consider necessary (agreeing them if possible). With this information the judge gives
directions in writing (without any court attendance) fixing a timetable which takes the
case from the beginning to the next phase considered realistically susceptible to early
procedural management. |
|
|
| 254.2 |
The procedural judge
has great flexibility in deciding what directions to give. If the case looks simple, he
may confine himself to a pleadings and discovery timetable without any case management
conference, immediately fixing a trial date or a "window period" for trial. On
the other hand, if it is a complex case involving many parties, documents, witnesses and
experts, he may set a timetable with dates for a case management conference and a
pre-trial review to focus the parties' efforts at each stage. He may or may not consider
it worth fixing a "trial window" at the outset. |
|
|
| 254.3 |
Once a timetable is
devised, the court holds the parties firmly to its "milestone" dates but
encourages the parties to agree as much as they can in between such dates and to reserve
to the scheduled hearings any interlocutory disputes, hoping to reduce the number of
interlocutory summonses issued. |
|
|
| 255. |
While (as previously
discussed) it is always difficult to assess the net costs implications of particular
reforms, the ALRC (Note 197) has pointed to some evidence in Australia that case
management achieves net cost savings from promoting efficient management of court business
and early settlement, although it considers the evidence inconclusive so that "the
jury is still out" on this point. Many of the observations made as to assessing the
costs implications of pre-action protocols apply equally to the costs implications of case
management. |
|
|
| 256. |
Readers are consulted
as to whether provisions making case management part of the overriding objective and
setting out the court's case management powers should be adopted: Proposals 2 and
3. |
