The Gazette 1996

APRIL/MAY 1996

GAZETTE

L A W B R I E F

• 1 1 III" III» El III

~a f T f ! « I i i k r i J j n ^ r g J . », :.

*s K t r t tl

i i ii • i i i t • •^•^•a g'm tfw1* www

p i j J m s f e t t s f f i 1 '

L i t i ga t i ng in t he Queen's Bench Di v i s ion, London

2. The court will accordingly exercise its discretion to limit:

by Dr. Eamonn G. Hall

A Culture Shock

(a) discovery; (b) the length of oral submissions; (c) the time allowed for the examination and cross- examination of witnesses; (d) the issues on which it wishes to be addressed; (e) reading aloud from documents and authorities." The experience in the Queen's Bench Division constituted a culture shock for the writer with the judge exercising an impressive control over the conduct of the case and adopting an inquisitorial style in relation to the nature and extent of the pleadings already filed in court. The concept of "wasted costs" is of paramount importance for all lawyers. The expression is defined in section 51 of the (UK) Supreme Court Act, 1981 as amended by section 4 of the Courts and Legal Services Act, 1990. "Wasted costs" includes costs incurred by a party as a result of any improper, unreasonable, or negligent act or omission of any legal representative. A failure, for example by either counsel or solicitors to conduct cases economically may be the subject of a wasted costs order. See Ridehalgh v. Horsfield [ 1994] Ch. 205 and Order 62 r. 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965.

Some weeks ago, the writer, (as a solicitor admitted in England and Wales) represented (with counsel) a party to proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division, High Court of Justice, London. The case related to an alleged breach of contract subject to the jurisdiction of the English Courts. The "Reply and Defence to Counterclaim" stage had been reached and the plaintiff had been obliged by the Rules of the Supreme Court to apply to the court for directions. If a plaintiff fails to issue a summons for directions pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court, any party interested may do so and may apply for the action to be struck out. represent a client in the English Courts; so can others. This note endeavours to record the writer's first experience in representing a client in the English High Court and to draw attention to differences between Irish and English procedures. We, in Ireland, should not hesitate to adopt the best practices and procedures from any jurisdiction with the intention of improving legal services for the persons for whom we serve - the people of Ireland. The experience in the Queen's Bench Division was something of a culture shock for the writer with the judge exercising an impressive control over the conduct of the case and adopting an inquisitorial style in relation to the nature and extent of the pleadings already filed in court. In the context of this note, the writer's philosophy is simple. If the writer can

A solicitor of England and Wales in court dress.

Practice Direction (Civil Litigation Case Management) [1995] 1WLR 262 but was curious as to how the judge would implement the practice direction. The first two paragraphs of the Practice Direction are worthy of being quoted here: 1 "The paramount importance of reducing the cost and delay of civil litigation makes it necessary for judges sitting at first instance to assert greater control over the preparation for and conduct of hearings than has hitherto been customary. Failure by practitioners to conduct cases economically will be visited by appropriate orders for costs, including wasted costs orders.

The Hearing

Having arrived at the High Court of Justice in good time, the writer approached a lady wearing a black

First, I was conscious of the 1995

55