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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll