Under the new rules, judges were required to take greater control over court proceedings, and accordingly had the power to entertaining a submission of no case to answer at the close of the claimant’s case and without first requiring the defendant to elect not to offer any evidence.
Judges:
David Foskett QC
Citations:
Times 29-Jul-1999
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(m)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Bentley v Jones Harris and Co CA 1-May-2001
The judge below acceded to a submission of no case to answer without putting the defendant to his election.
Held: ‘At the time of this trial it was, it seems, common ground between counsel for both parties and the judge that under the CPR . .
Applied – Boyce v Wyatt Engineering and Others CA 1-May-2001
The discretion of a judge to deal with a case at the close of the claimant’s case, and without putting the defendants to their respective election was only to be exercised with the greatest caution. There was a risk that, if the claimant appealed . .
Cited – Neina Graham v Chorley Borough Council CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant had submitted after the close of the claimant’s case that it had no case to answer. The judge did not put the defendant to its election as to whether to call evidence, but instead decided to accede to the submission. The claimant now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.84116