 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  |
|  |
|
K9.2. The need for timetables initiated and supervised by the court
| 336. | Part of the overriding objective of the CPR involves the court undertaking the proactive management of cases. As CPR 1.4(1)(g) provides, this involves the court "fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case." The fixing by the court of timetables with firm milestone dates at an early stage of the proceedings is a central feature of efforts to counteract delays and distortions arising from misuse of the adversarial process. The timetable lays down the framework in which the court exercises its case management powers. |
| 337. | The parties to a dispute also benefit from a clear timetable. It gives them an appreciation of where they have got to in the litigation and greater certainty as to what is to happen next and by when. Knowing when to expect a response from the other side also lessens misunderstanding. In the context of pre-action protocols, as discussed, the premature launching of proceedings through mis-construing the absence of a response from the other side may be avoided. Timetables also give a time frame for assessing the costs incurred and likely to be incurred. |
| 338. | Fixing a timetable involves determining by when particular steps in the proceedings must be taken and when important case events are to take place. Accordingly, if a timetable is to be effective and to provide a workable basis for proper case management, the person fixing it must have some knowledge of the nature and dimensions of the case. This means that the rules should, in the first place, require the parties to provide the procedural judge with such knowledge. |
|
 |
|
