Report comment

It is a basic principle of natural justice that both sides get to see the information upon which any decision is made. The critical thing here is that the other side must be apprised of the case against them for justice to be done.

However it does not necessarily follow that this imposes a positive duty on the issuing party to copy in the other side (although the desire for a happy Judge and a non-appealable judgment would make this advisable, and most lawyers would consider a failure to do so unprofessional).

Absent any express requirement in the CPR, the duty (if any actually exists) to copy in the other side would ultimately lie with both the party issuing the communication *and* the Court.

It sounds like what is being proposed here is to expressly push responsibility back on the issuing party. Having an express rule makes sense - whilst lawyers should be well aware of the unwritten rules for natural justice, you can hardly expect LiPs to follow rules that they are unaware of.