Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

This reminds me of the recent complaint of the LCJ that the rules are designed for lawyers. In my experience they aren't designed for anyone. The problem is the rule writers who are simply not very good at what they do. Add the lawyers in the judiciary who are willing to ignore the notion of justice in order to engage in something akin to argumentation theory and it isn’t a modern phenomenon.
An example from the RCJ is the interpretation of Order 14 (summary judgement applications) which would defeat a valid application if the solicitor swearing the affidavit in support didn’t state that he/she was authorised by the client to do so, ignoring the authority to conduct the litigation inherent in the retainer. Being able to defeat some good cases because of the complexity of the RSC and now the CPR encourages insurers and others who are regular litigants to try to exploit the rules and defend cases they should settle. It was that kind of thing which Wolfe was trying to eradicate but, despite the overriding objective we lawyers have made the arguments and judicial decisions have accepted them, buggering it up again. Then another judge comes in and grafts more changes which mess things up even more.
Neuberger, the LCJ and everyone else with responsibility for making the system work have to face the fact that lawyers with clients to represent will take any point (it is our duty to do so) and it is for the rule makers and judges to stop feeding the sickness. Stop counting angels and start applying justice. Stop denying costs because someone was a few days late filing a document and start asking what difference it makes to the achievement of justice. Stop assuming that judges know what they are doing when it comes to case management.
Why not let solicitors and barrister prepare their clients’ cases with minimal judicial interference. Let’s have the judges concentrate instead on ensuring that every decision was tested against the overriding objective, and by that I mean really, intelligently tested. If every judge was trained how not to fall for the points whose only merit is technical and appeal judges were quick to root out decisions which failed to address the overriding objective litigation would be quicker and cheaper.

Your details

Cancel