Report comment

Snide comments below imho.

What the Court needs is less hostility. More understanding of and narrowing down of issues early on by correspondence and disclosure then voluntarily based on this narrowing down.

I have never understood the Public School Charades -Fest, that is Civil Litigation (even though I have done a lot of it and read a lot of practitioners texts in it). In a fairly complicated Mags case, to compare, for example, one looks at prelim. / primary disclosure, works out from this what the issues are, asks for further disclosure or clarification of the charge / information or in similar Public School - Civil Litigation parlance what would be the Claim Form / 'Pleadings' (OK Harry Woolf I am using the old parlance there), which leaves either two options, one goes for complete dismissal (say for abuse), or one drafts a skeleton there and then for further disclosure and / or third party disclosure, and then gets the case on for trial.

I can understand the need for statements to be prepared prior to the skeleton of course.

Orders can be dealt with by Court Staff initially making such and on objection, forwarding letters / comments (with attachments) to the sitting judge assigned to that purpose for that day - as per the Crown Court.

I blame the 'adversarial' dorm-like philosophy that has built up for the delays and very poor quality (D) DJ's that were poor quality Barristers in practice and in not a few cases, probably need to be pulled mandrake - style from their offices to make way for more practical 'litigators' to take their place.

PAB