Tweet
Re: Please help - very worried. Ref: IND/Hegarty LLP/Aktiv Kapital/MBNA
Your right to apply stems from the fact they didn't comply with a court order.
Cpr 1.3
Duty of the parties
1.3
The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.
The overriding objective
1.1
(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
(2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable –
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and
(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
The court ordered x they failed. In response to x you had to do y. Because they didn't do x y is irrelevant.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/41.html
29.It is to be noted that the order of Walker J. was expressly worded to provide for the sequential disclosure of witness statements and skeletons and that the obligations placed upon the defendant were to be "in response" to compliance by the claimant with its own obligations in this regard. I therefore doubt very much whether the defendant was in default of the order relating to the filing and service of witness statements at all. The obligation upon it was to respond and there was nothing to respond to.
M1
Your right to apply stems from the fact they didn't comply with a court order.
Cpr 1.3
Duty of the parties
1.3
The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.
The overriding objective
1.1
(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
(2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable –
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and
(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
The court ordered x they failed. In response to x you had to do y. Because they didn't do x y is irrelevant.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/41.html
29.It is to be noted that the order of Walker J. was expressly worded to provide for the sequential disclosure of witness statements and skeletons and that the obligations placed upon the defendant were to be "in response" to compliance by the claimant with its own obligations in this regard. I therefore doubt very much whether the defendant was in default of the order relating to the filing and service of witness statements at all. The obligation upon it was to respond and there was nothing to respond to.
M1
Comment