Report comment

Funny how obviously Claimant solicitors seem to think that awarding indemnity costs following a Trial win for their client against the backdrop of a FD Defence is appropriate and will benefit their client. Will the Claimant receive any of those costs? Of course he won't.

If their are clear concerns on how a case is managed, from either side, then the potential for redress is there, if one chooses to use/argue it, by way of section 51 of the Senior Courts Act. The problem is (certainly from my experience) that the potential issues are there to be seen from the outset, often raised, but then not dealt with reasonably (i.e. through Part 18, for example) or followed through to any great degree, leaving the issues to be dealt with at Trial during cross-examination. If both sides adopted a reasonable approach at the earliest possible stage of the case (i.e. rather than a point blank refusal to entertain Part 18 to address the issues), and actually talked to each other, then a lot would be achieved in plenty of time prior to the Trial. Unfortunately, it still seems that an adversarial approach to these cases is the norm. By way of an example, I always offer to mutually exchange statements and Lists prior to the parties' filing DQ's, to both ensure that each party knows what the others is and, also, to minimise the directions that the Court has to issue. Not once has this been accepted, with my opponents either ignoring the request completely or saying that they would 'rather wait for the Court's directions'). I will never understand this approach, as it only delays the conclusion of the case (i.e. if the exchange deals sufficiently with the issues had, settlement will normally follow soon after) or concentrates the minds of both parties to enable adequate preparation for Trial.