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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll