Witness statements which had not been served in accordance with the rules were not be admitted. Courts are to adopt a far stricter approach to applications for adjournment based on lack of readiness for trial than hitherto: ‘I would like to make it absolutely clear that I do not accept that submission. The very reason why the order is drafted in the terms that it is, is to ensure that unless there are circumstances which justify the Court exercising discretion in favour of the party in default, that discretion will not be exercised and the party will be deprived of the evidence. It is no use the party coming forward and saying, ‘The evidence will help our case’. If this is the position, the rule may as well not exist. You have to consider the position not only from the plaintiff’s point of view, but also from the point of view of the defendant, and with a view to doing justice between other litigants as well. The history of this case illustrates the inconvenience and the disruption to the administration of justice generally that this approach to the rules creates.’
Judges:
Lord Woolfe MR
Citations:
Times 18-Jul-1996, [1997] PNLR 197
Statutes:
County Court Rules 1981 Ord 20 R 12A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Smith v Chief Constable of Kent CA 26-Jan-1998
The plaintiffs had sought to claim against the defendants for tort of malicious prosecution The trial had been vacated once on the defendants paying costs, and they made a second application, saying that more days were needed. That application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.78305
