header-logo header-logo

18 May 2018
Issue: 7793 / Categories: Features , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Judicial line: 18 May 2018

This week: absence of non-mol statement; small claim expenses; counsels’ duty on drafting order; costs budgeting

Look, no statement!

Q What sanction can be imposed on the respondent to a contested non-molestation order application who has failed to comply with directions for the filing and service of witness statements and Scott Schedule responses? Can they be debarred from contesting the application or from giving evidence in opposition?

A There is no reason why FPR 22.10 which empowers the court to refuse to hear oral evidence from a party who is in breach of a witness statement direction should not apply in this instance (although the better course would be for the court to initially make an ‘unless’ order) and the court could impose the same sanction for breach of a Scott Schedule direction in the exercise of its case management powers under FPR 4.1(3)(o), subject to the respondent’s right to apply for relief from sanction. Whether it would do so is another matter given the sensitivity of cases such as this and particularly

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll