Report comment

For a very clever person, Dyson always manages to give the impression he is a complete d*ckhead.

The current muddle we have is as a direct result of years of 'simplification' of the rules. Has Dyson learnt nothing? When rules are detailed and clear, there is less room for interpretation about what they mean and how they are to be applied. Justice is therefore easier, quicker and cheaper.

As Richard Ennis points out above, the CPR was supposed to be the simplification of the existing rules, allowing everything to be case managed and decided on its own facts without tying judges down to what were perceived to be complex procedures set in stone etc. The problem with that is less certainty about how issues will be approached by the court. This inevitably leads to more (not less) litigation, court time and cost.

I've never yet had a client asking for advice who didn't prefer being told, 'Well, the rule is X, so what will happen is Y' to being told 'Well, there's no set answer to that because it all depends...'.

Clear rules are better for LiPs as well because the vast majority of them can read but haven't got an extensive knowledge of case law and/or experience of how the courts interpret CPR to fall back on.