Report comment

Can someone tell me where the new overriding objective refers to justice and fairness as applied in this case?

The message from Jackson is litigation was conducted in a manner which was too time consuming, cost too much, wasted the courts resources and so efficiency and control is the name of the game. That's still the message

And so in the name of efficiency and control we now have a situation when
-the requirements imposed by the court add immensely to the work and burdens that have to be done -particularly with regards to CCMCs when it has to be said, the DJs themselves have neither the time nor inclination to wade through it all in the detail probably envisaged
-The preparation and costs for such hearings dwarf the work that used to be necessary for CMC's directions or allocation hearings but add little of value to the progression of the case
- If the DJ doesn't wade through it on the day (and many are adjourned for a rainy day) its a waste of time and costs for everyone concerned.
-opponents now are keen to take minor points and create even more satellite litigation because of the inherent inconsistency of the new approach- justice and fairness do not sit well in the world of Mitchell efficiency - which makes a common approach on issues less likely

And that's before we get to the situation of all the satellite litigation caused by an ideology that's demands cases be struck out for minor breaches - and the increased demand of the courts time being arguably wasted by issues such as this one, that once upon a time may have been agreed between the parties and delays ALL the other cases before the court.

So whilst Sir David Eady can be applauded for his approach in this case -it doesn't actually help the practitioner, doesn't bring consistency and can still arguably be overturned or distinguished by a pro-Jackson Judge in the Court of Appeal

In such legal utopia - time for a career change I think