Report comment

Anon @ 12:30. Spot on.

Couldn't agree more. The problem is not LIPs vs lawyers. It's about the post CPR system which was supposed to do away with the early 1990s ossification of the rules (which innovations such as automatic strike out, etc.) and do away with complex, hard to fathom terminology and pointless distinctions (e.g. a regular judgment wrongly obtained vs an irregular judgment properly obtained / error of procedure vs error of procedural law etc.)

Yet after the nonsensical and unjustifiable Mitchell / Denton rubbish, we're in a worse position now than ever.

Don't forget that when they drafted the CPR the first rule - Part 1, Rule 1, was to do justice between the parties. This was to be not just an objective of the court system, but THE *OVERRIDING* objective.

As for service rules, don't forget we're on the third (or is it fourth) completely redrafted version of CPR Part 6 and still cases on service end up at the Court of Appeal.

Quite frankly, I can not see any moral justification, or indeed any justification at all, for a system where procedural technicality is considered more important than actually achieving the correct outcome.