Report comment

It is rather simple.

1) Where a rule requires a party to take a step by a certain time, and provides that if the step is not taken, another party may take some other consequential step, this should be treated as a case in which an application for relief from sanctions is necessary. [e.g. file defence by 14 days or get judgment; file amended pleading by certain date so that opponent can file pleading in reply; file Points of Dispute on certain day]

2) An application for relief from sanctions should in the above situation consider the prejudice caused, and what steps the court can impose in order to remedy that prejudice. Striking out is extremly rarely an appropriate way to remedy that prejudice.

3) Where a court has made an "unless order", either on the application of a party, or as a result of an application having been made for relief from sanction, breach of the same should be treated under the Mitchell criteria. However, unless orders must never be made unless grounds for needing one are shown.

4) ALL other orders [e.g. witness statements, disclosure, etc.] may be varied by the parties by agreement, and attract no sanction for breach, SAVE that if a date is missed by one party, the opposing party may apply for an unless order.

I think if the rules provided for the above, it would do justice, as everyone other than Dyson LJ understands the word "justice" to mean.