Report comment

One of the sticking points for me is this: say that it is held to be acceptable to hold LiPs to a lower standard. This means that defendants are placed in a particular position when dealing with a LiP in which they may simply have to accept late/improper service under the rules as they currently are.

How then, in a case where both parties have legal representation and the same issues occur for one reason or another, can D say that their position is materially worse?

If it's sometimes 'okay' enough that they are just expected to deal with it, surely they can 'just deal with it' on those other occasions too?

This helps neither claimant nor defendant and simply moves us towards 1) a two-tiered system which few will ever be happy with, or 2) satellite litigation trying to iron out what means what for whom and when.

One set of rules for all, simple to understand and easy to comply with - nothing else. When attempting to conduct litigation, you should know they're there.