Part 1
OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE
| This Part is referred to in: Part 67 (67.4), Part 76 (76.2), PDP 04 (1.3), PDP 28 (1.1), PDP 29 (1.1), PDP 31 (5.4), PDP 32 (28.4), PDP 44 (13.13), PDP 51 (12), PDP 61 (4.2), RSC 71 (44), Defamation Protocol (1.5), Chancery Guide - Chap 5 (5.17), QB Guide - Chapter 10 (10.3), QB Guide - Intro (1.2), Comm Ct Guide - Pt N (N5.5), (N5.7), Court Service Guide (51.), Guide to Summary Assessment of Costs (8), 03a1368 [101], 656 [55], [55], ABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne [20], Amec Process & Energy Ltd v Stork Engineers & Contractors BV [20], Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd [73], Ashton v Securum Finance [29], Baring v Coopers Lybrand [54], Baron v Lovell [37], Biguzzi v Rank Leisure Plc [42], [46], Bristol City Council v Hassan [13], Calden v Nunn [24], [40], Callery v Gray [131], Cobbold v Greenwich [9], Contractreal v Davies [59], Cranfield v Bridgegrove Ltd [55], [55], Daniels v Walker [20], Factortame Ltd v Dept of Transport [21], Field v Leeds CC [28], Floods of Queensferry Ltd v Shand Construction Ltd [29], Flynn v Scougall [10], Graham v Chorley District Council [16], Haji-Ioannou v Frangos [15], [16], Hall v Simons [12], Holmes v SGB [38], Home Office v Lownds [17], Huck v Robson [74], Loveridge v Healey [2], [2], Martin v Steelforce [4], Mason v First Leisure Corporation [28], Mathews v Tarmac [24], McPhilemy v Times [93], [97], [97], Miller v Garton Shires [11], Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor in Creteil France [53], [57], [57], [70], Mount Cook Land Limited v Westminster City Council [59], Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait [39], [39], Price v Price [36], Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [11], Roger v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [102], [102], [103], Sasea Finance Ltd v KPMG [9], Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt (No 2) [21], Smithkline Beecham plc v Horne-Roberts [22], St Helen's Metropolitan BC v Barnes [2], Stevens v Gullis [58], Swain v Hillman [20], Thorn v MacDonald [46], Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [158], [159], [93], Totty v Snowden [17], Vinos v Marks & Spencer [26], Wallis v Valentine [27], [29], Walsh v Misseldine [68], [97], Woodward v Finch [17], [21], [27]. |
THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE
|
|
1.1 |
| (1)
| These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly. |
| (2)
| Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable ---
| (a)
| ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing; |
| (c)
| dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate ---
| (i)
| to the amount of money involved; |
| (ii)
| to the importance of the case; |
| (iii)
| to the complexity of the issues; and |
| (iv)
| to the financial position of each party; |
|
| (d)
| ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and |
| (e)
| allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases. |
|
|
| This Rule is referred to in: PDP 31 (2), PDP 44 (11.1), Constrn. and Engineering Protocol (5.2), Protocols PD (4.1), Chancery Guide - Chap 1 (1.2), Patent Ct Guide (10), TCC Guide (2.1.3), Comm Ct Guide - Pt E (E4.5), Comm Ct Guide - Pt N (N9.2), Guide to Summary Assessment of Costs (14), A v B & C [8], AXA v Swire [13], Akram v Adam [40], Arrow Nominees v Blackledge [72], Ashton v Securum Finance [30], [30], Asiansky Television Plc v Bayer-Rosin [40], [43], [43], BA v British Coal Corporation [24], Bermuda v KPMG [42], Black v Sumitomo [51], Bulled v Khayat [9], CIBC Mellon Trust Co v Mora Hotel Corporation [29], Calden v Nunn [41], City of London v Reeve & Co Ltd [15], Co-operative Retail v Guardian [56], Collier v Williams [126], [131], [131], Contract v Rees [26], Contractreal v Davies [62], Daniels v Walker [20], Davis v Birmingham Coroner [45], ES v NHS [17], [18], FP (Iran) v Home Department [80], Flynn v Scougall [10], Folks v Faizey [21], Garratt v Saxby [18], Gillingham v Gillingham [17], Godwin v Swindon BC [14], Hall v Simons [12], Halloran v Delaney [9], Hashtroodi v Hancock [11], [11], [12], [22], Hoddinot v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd [54], Home Office v Lownds [26], Jolly v Jay [19], Keith v CPM Field [34], [51], Khudados v Hayden [45], King v Telegraph [83], Leigh v Michelin Tyre Plc [15], MA Holdings Ltd v Wimpey [21], Maridive v CNA [34], Morris v Bank of America [67], [67], Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait [46], Nelson v Clearsprings [49], O’Brien v SW Police [68], [75], Parsons v George [41], Placito v Slater [36], [36], [36], [48], Price v Price [36], Purdy v Cambrian [46], Re Claims Direct Test Cases (CA) [29], Re Claims Direct Test Cases [18], Reed v Oury [33], Reid Minty v Taylor [12], Robert v Momentum Services Ltd [31], [33], Roger v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [100], Sarwar v Alam [56], Savings & Investment Bank Ltd v Fincken [78], Sayers v Clarke Walker [18], Scammell v Dicker (2) [45], Seray-Wurie v Hackney BC [9], Tajik Aluminium Plant v Hydro Aluminium AS [16], The Queen v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [67], Thorn v MacDonald [44], [47], Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [92], Thurrock BC v Secretary of State [26], [27], Totty v Snowden [17], Vinos v Marks & Spencer [21], [26], Walsh v Misseldine [68], [79], [79], Woodhouse v Consignia [40], [57]. |
APPLICATION BY THE COURT OF THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE
|
|
1.2 |
| The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it ---
| (a)
| exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or |
|
|
| This Rule is referred to in: 05l26 [54], Arrow Nominees v Blackledge [72], Ashton v Securum Finance [30], Asiansky Television Plc v Bayer-Rosin [43], Calden v Nunn [41], Charles v NTL [43], Colley CLC [45], Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire [25], Flynn v Scougall [10], [30], Godwin v Swindon BC [14], [28], [30], Goode v Martin [35], Gregson v Channel Four [11], Hashtroodi v Hancock [12], [18], Independiente v Music Trading [23], Keith v CPM Field [37], MA Holdings Ltd v Wimpey [21], Morris v Bank of America [67], [67], Placito v Slater [22], Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association [36], Purdy v Cambrian [45], Thorn v MacDonald [42], Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [92], Thurrock BC v Secretary of State [26], Totty v Snowden [14], Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [23], Vinos v Marks & Spencer [14], [14], [16], Walsh v Misseldine [79], Woodhouse v Consignia [40]. |
DUTY OF THE PARTIES
|
|
1.3 |
| The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective. |
|
| This Rule is referred to in: TCC Guide (5.1.2), B v B [29], Calden v Nunn [25], [41], Collier v Williams [54], Flynn v Scougall [10], [30], Hall v Simons [204], Hannigan v Hannigan [36], Khudados v Hayden [39], King v Telegraph [83], Morris v Bank of America [68], Olatawura v Abiloye [10], [11], [27], Price v Price [42], Skjevesland v Geveran Trading Co Ltd [46], Williams Corporate Finance Plc v Holland [58]. |
COURT'S DUTY TO MANAGE CASES
|
|
1.4 |
| (1)
| The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases. |
| (2)
| Active case management includes ---
| (a)
| encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings; |
| (b)
| identifying the issues at an early stage; |
| (c)
| deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others; |
| (d)
| deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved; |
| (f)
| helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the case; |
| (g)
| fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case; |
| (h)
| considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify the cost of taking it; |
| (i)
| dealing with as many aspects of the case as it can on the same occasion; |
| (j)
| dealing with the case without the parties needing to attend at court; |
| (k)
| making use of technology; and |
| (l)
| giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently. |
|
|
| This Rule is referred to in: PDP 03 (1.1), PDP 26 (5.1), Chancery Guide - Chap 14 (kr1), Chancery Guide - Chap 3 (kr1), 05l26 [54], Amec Process & Energy Ltd v Stork Engineers & Contractors BV [20], Dunnett v Railtrack (Note) [2], Godwin v Swindon BC [44], Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [4], [4], Knowsley Housing Trust v Revell [24], Price v Price [37], Reliance Insurance v Ropner Insurance [26], S&N v Raguz [48], Walsh v Misseldine [68]. |
|
| | | |