This snapshot, taken on
04/02/2011
, shows web content acquired for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search may not work in archived websites and contact details are likely to be out of date.
 
 
The UK Government Web Archive does not use cookies but some may be left in your browser from archived websites.
Cymraeg | Access Keys | Site Map | Feedback
Legal / Professional
 
Advanced search

Practice Directions by Court

Consolidated Criminal Practice Directions Administrative Court Admiralty Court Chancery Division Commercial Court Companies Court County Courts Court of Appeal - Civil Division Court of Appeal - Criminal Division Court of Protection Crown Court Family Division Magistrates' Courts National Taxing Team. Patents Court Queen's Bench Division Senior Court Costs Office Technology and Construction Court HMCS Wales

Practice Directions

Practice Direction 51, Paragraph 19


1. The Vice-Chancellor is aware that, as a result of paragraph 19 of PD51 a large number of applications are being made to courts seeking "directions", but giving no details of precisely what directions are sought, or of the factual background of the case. These applications are being made in such numbers that it is impossible for some courts to deal with them at oral hearings before 26th April 2000, the cut-off date.

2. While each case must be a matter for individual judicial decision, the Vice-chancellor suggests that in the majority of such cases an order could be made referring the case to a procedural judge for directions to be made.

3. The Order should require the applicant by a set date to indicate the specific directions sought with reasons where appropriate; to obtain where possible the agreement of the other parties to the proposed directions, and if not, to indicate why this could not be done; to lodge a chronology and give sufficient information to enable the procedural judge to allocate the claim to a track, and to fix a trial date or trial window. The applicant would be informed that if, but only if, those directions were complied with by the set date, the application would be treated as having been heard on paper before 26th April for the purposes of paragraph 19(1) of PD51, thereby preventing the operation of the automatic stay.

4. The Vice-chancellor hopes that such a procedure will lead to a substantial saving of judicial time and time of court staff. There will be a further saving if this results in an agreed order for directions which the judge could also subsequently approve on paper.



^ Top
This page was last updated on 23 February 2005 12:34. Web Team.
Contact us . Terms and conditions .