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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll