header-logo header-logo

Judicial line: 18 May 2018

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll