You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Case Management Conference’ tag.
The plaintiffs failed to attend a case management conference (“CMC“), and as a result, the action was provisionally struck out by a Master.
In the present application, the plaintiffs applied to restore their claim pursuant to O.25 r.1C of the Rules of High Court (Cap. 4A – Sub. Leg.). In determining the application, Madam Registrar Au-Yeung considered the following three questions:
(i) whether the plaintiffs meet the threshold of showing “good reasons“;
(ii) whether the court, as a matter of its discretion, shall grant a restoration of the action; and
(iii) if the court decides to restore the action, what conditions should be imposed.
Madam Registrar Au-Yeung observed that the reasons put forward by the plaintiffs’ solicitors were inconsistent. Moreover, she noted that the plaintiffs did not file any evidence to show merits of their claims. However, given that this was the first application of its kind before her and the practitioners may not be familiar with r.1C, Madam Registrar Au-Yeung exercised her discretion to restore the action with no conditions imposed.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 23 CJRA.
Three new Practice Directions were issued on 5 October 2009, namely: (i) Practice Direction SL1 regarding directions made by the Judge of the Commercial List pursuant to O.72 r.2(3) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A, Sub.Leg.); (ii) Practice Direction SL1.1 regarding the Commercial List; and (iii) Practice Direction 11.1 on ex parte, interim and interlocutory applications for relief (including injunctive relief). The new Practice Directions came into effect on 1 November 2009. We have set out below the key points of these new Practice Directions.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this article subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 15 CJRA.
In this case, at the Case Management Conference, the Honourable Mr Justice Fung considered a late application by the parties (by consent) for leave to adduce evidence from a joint neurological expert. A Master had previously ordered that no further medical evidence be obtained without leave of the judge. In addition, the matter had not been set down for trial notwithstanding that there had already been three checklist reviews. The Honourable Mr Justice Fung reluctantly allowed the application for a joint neurological report, but said that for future cases, he would suggest that “the Master should consider making an unless order for setting down to be sanctioned by dismissal of the action once it is concluded that case preparation is complete and sealed with an order of no further evidence without leave“. In this case, the defendants had also rejected the plaintiff’s invitation to mediate, on the basis that “the proceedings had reached an advanced stage” and “the issue of liability is in dispute“. The Honourable Mr Justice Fung rejected both arguments and reiterated that unreasonable refusal to attempt mediation, especially when the other party has made the request, is relevant conduct in litigation in the exercise of the discretion on costs.
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 14 CJRA.
In this case, Registrar Au-Yeung considered how the parties should approach case management under the Civil Justice Reform (CJR), when the parties have also agreed to attempt mediation. In doing so, Registrar Au-Yeung emphasized one of the underlying objectives set out in O.1A r.1(b) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A, Sub. Leg.), namely to ensure that a case is dealt with as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable. Registrar Au-Yeung remarked: “I wish to restate the court’s position. We do encourage parties to go ahead with mediation, but that does not necessarily mean all court proceedings, including milestone events, have to be stayed. What we do is that we take into account the time needed for mediation and may give leave to set down for trial if there are no outstanding directions. This will ensure that mediation and, if necessary, litigation, will proceed at reasonable speed. So once we fix a CMC and decline to move that date, parties are expected to comply with all directions and PD5.2.”
CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.
This article is available in [2009] 13 CJRA.
