|
|
|
|
| 3.1 |
A key feature of the CPR is that cases are closely monitored by the court. Case management by the court includes: identifying disputed issues at an early stage; fixing timetables; dealing with as many aspects of the case as possible on the same occasion; controlling costs; disposing of cases summarily where they disclose no case or defence; dealing with the case without the parties having to attend court; and giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently. The court will expect the parties to co-operate with each other. Where appropriate the court will encourage the parties to use alternative dispute resolution (on which see Chapter 17) or otherwise help them settle the case. In particular, the court will readily grant a short stay at allocation or at any other stage to accommodate mediation or any other form of settlement negotiations. The court will not, however, normally, grant an open-ended stay for such purposes and if, for any reason, a lengthy stay is granted it will be on terms that the parties report to the court on a regular basis in respect of their negotiations.
|
| 3.2 |
In the Chancery Division case management is normally carried out by the Masters, but a judge may be nominated by the Chancellor to hear the case and to deal with the case management where it is appropriate due to the size or complexity of the case or for other reasons. A request by any or all parties for such a nomination should be addressed to the Chancellor.
|
|
|
| 3.3 |
It is expected that parties and their advisers will endeavour to agree proposals for management of the case at the allocation stage in accordance with rule 29.4 and paragraphs 4.6 to 4.8 of PD 29. In particular, the parties should act co-operatively and seek to agree directions and a list of the issues to be tried. The court will approve the parties' proposals, if they are suitable, and give directions accordingly without a hearing. If it does not approve the agreed directions it may give modified directions or its own directions or, more usually, direct a case management conference. If the parties cannot agree directions then each party should put forward its own proposals for the future management of the case for consideration by the court. Draft orders commonly made by the Masters on allocation and at case management conferences are set out at Appendix 3, and parties drafting proposed directions for submission to a Master on allocation or at a case management conference should have regard to and make use, as appropriate, of those draft orders.
|
| 3.4 |
If parties do not, at the allocation stage, agree or attempt to agree directions and if, in consequence, the court is unable to give directions without ordering a case management conference, the parties should not expect to recover any costs in respect of such a case management conference.
|
| 3.5 |
In many claims the court will give directions without holding a case management conference.
|
| 3.6 |
Any party who considers that a case management conference should be held before any directions are given should so state in his or her allocation questionnaire (or, in the case of a Part 8 claim, inform the court in writing) and give reasons why he or she considers that a case management conference is required. The court when sending out allocation questionnaires will also send out a questionnaire inviting the parties to give their time estimate for any case management conference and to specify any dates or times inconvenient for the holding of a case management conference.
|
| 3.7 |
Wherever possible, the advocate(s) instructed or expected to be instructed to appear at the trial should attend any hearing at which case management directions are likely to be given. To this end the court when ordering a case management conference, otherwise than upon allocation, will normally send out questionnaires to the parties in respect of their availability. Parties must not, however, expect that a case management conference will be held in abeyance for a substantial length of time in order to accommodate the advocates' convenience.
|
| 3.8 |
Case management conferences are intended to deal with the general management of the case. They are not an opportunity to make controversial interim applications without appropriate notice to the opposing party. Accordingly, as provided by paragraph 5.8(1) of PD 29, where a party wishes to obtain an order not routinely made at a case management conference (such as an order for specific disclosure or summary disposal) such application should be made by separate Part 23 application to be heard at the case management conference and the case management conference should be listed for a sufficient period of time to allow the application to be heard. Where parties fail to comply with this paragraph it is highly unlikely that the court will entertain, other than by consent, an application which is not of a routine nature. It is the obligation of the parties to ensure that a realistic time estimate for hearings is given to the court.
|
| 3.9 |
Even where routine orders are sought (i.e. orders falling within the topics set out in paragraph 5.3 of PD 29) care should be taken to ensure that the opposing party is given notice of the orders intended to be sought.
|
|
|
| 3.10 |
Before a party applies to the court for an order that another party provides him or her with any further information or specific disclosure of documents he or she must communicate directly with the other party in an attempt to reach agreement or narrow the issues before the matter is raised with the court. If not satisfied that the parties have taken steps to reach agreement or narrow the issues, the court will normally require such steps to be taken before hearing the application.
|
|
|
| 3.11 |
Costs can sometimes be saved by identifying decisive issues, or potentially decisive issues, and ordering that they are tried first. The decision of one issue, although not itself decisive in law of the whole case, may enable the parties to settle the remainder of the dispute. In such cases a preliminary issue may be appropriate.
|
| 3.12 |
At the allocation stage, at any case management conference and again at any PTR, consideration will be given to the possibility of the trial of preliminary issues the resolution of which is likely to shorten proceedings. The court may suggest the trial of a preliminary issue, but it will rarely make an order without the concurrence of at least one of the parties.
|
Group Litigation Orders
|
| 3.13 |
Under rule 19.11, where there are likely to be a number of claims giving rise to common or related issues of fact, the court may make a Group Litigation Order ("GLO") for their case management. Such orders may be appropriate in chancery proceedings and there are a number in existence. A list of GLOs is published on the HMCS website. An application for a GLO is made under Part 23. The procedure is set out in PD 19 Group Litigation, which provides that the application should be made to the Chief Master, except for claims in a specialist list (such as the business of the Patents Court), when the application should be made to the senior judge of that list.
|
| 3.14 |
Claimants wishing to join in group litigation should issue proceedings in the normal way and should then apply (by letter) to be entered on the Group Register set up by a GLO. The details required for entry will be specified in the GLO. In the Chancery Division the Register is usually kept by the management court and is maintained either by the court or by the lead solicitors, as specified in the GLO. Where the Register is kept in the Chancery Division at the Royal Courts of Justice, it is kept by Mrs VC Bell, Chancery Lawyer (Room TM5.06, tel. 020 7947 6080). Any initial enquiries regarding GLOs may be addressed to her.
|
|
|
| 3.15 |
The judge at trial, or sometimes at the PTR, may determine the timetable for the trial. The advocates for the parties should be ready to assist the court in this respect if so required. The time estimate given for the trial should have been based on an approximate forecast of the trial timetable, and must be reviewed by each party at the stage of the PTR and as preparation for trial proceeds thereafter. If that review requires a change in the estimate the other parties' advocates and the court must be informed.
|
| 3.16 |
When a trial timetable is set by the court, it will ordinarily fix the time for the oral submissions and factual and expert evidence, and it may do so in greater or lesser detail. Trial timetables are always subject to any further order by the trial judge.
|
|
|
| 3.17 |
In cases estimated to take more than 10 days and in other cases where the circumstances warrant it, the court may direct that a PTR be held (see rule 29.7).
|
| 3.18 |
Such a PTR will normally be heard by a judge. The date and time should be fixed with the Chancery Judges' Listing Officer. If the trial judge has already been nominated, the application will if possible be heard by that judge. The advocates' clerks must attend the Chancery Judges' Listing Officer in sufficient time so that the PTR can be fixed between four and eight weeks before the trial date.
|
| 3.19 |
A PTR should be attended by advocates who are to represent the parties at the trial.
|
| 3.20 |
Not less than 7 days before the date fixed for the PTR the claimant, or another party if so directed by the court, must circulate a list of matters to be considered at the PTR, including proposals as to how the case should be tried, to the other parties, who must respond with their comments at least 2 days before the PTR.
|
| 3.21 |
The claimant, or another party if so directed by the court, should deliver a bundle containing the lists of matters to be considered and proposals served by the parties on each other and the trial timetable, together with the results of the discussions between the parties as to those matters, and any other documents the court is likely to need in order to deal with the PTR, to the Chancery Judges' Listing Office by 10am on the day before the day fixed for the hearing of the PTR.
|
| 3.22 |
At the PTR the court will review the state of preparation of the case, and deal with outstanding procedural matters, not limited to those apparent from the lists of matters lodged by the parties. The court may give directions as to how the case is to be tried, including directions as to the order in which witnesses are to be called (for example all witnesses of fact before all expert witnesses) or as to the time to be allowed for particular stages in the trial.
|