header-logo header-logo

13 June 2013 / Tom Henderson
Issue: 7564 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

A treacherous short-cut?

istock_000007902260medium

Early determination should be considered, but only if conditions are right, says Tom Henderson

One of the underlying themes of Jackson LJ’s final report, is the call for more forceful case management (Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, December 2009).

The determination of issues at an early stage in litigation by way of a preliminary issues hearing is a common, and sometimes very effective, case management tool. CPR Pt 3.1(2) specifically gives the court the power to determine part of the proceedings separately, by directing the separate trial of preliminary issues. However, a number of decisions in the appellate courts have highlighted failings of preliminary issue trials, which have not had the intended effect. So, what can go wrong in the trial of a preliminary issue? And when should parties and their advisors pursue such early determination?

When deployed correctly, the benefits of a preliminary issues hearing are obvious. Such early determination can decide crucial questions of fact or law, reduce quantum claimed, remove the need for parties to participate

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll