You're quite right as to its clarity. Adherence to the clarity is a different matter altogether(!) It might help for a higher court to shout about the same...
It won't do any good. The only solution is scrupulous case management at all levels, I think. We need case management orders to actively control the bundle, including requiring documents to be removed on a regular basis. And unqualified permission to exceed 350 pages should be forbidden.
I partially agree, but the issue always is what to do in the face of non-compliance. With civil cases it is simple enough to simply vacate with a reprimand and wasted costs. Less so when a family have already been waiting so long for a hearing and desperately need progress.
Completely agree. I don't think sanctions will work, including the periodic bad-tempered high court judgment. So the focus should be on prevention which I think involves active case management of setting out what is in the bundle for the next hearing.
That won't solve the other problem of everyone working backwards from the date of the hearing irrespective of court deadlines but I'm not sure what we do about that. I'm fed up of Cafcass reporting 3 days before a DRA & upending the timetable for statements in response etc!
Comments