Cases - Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Sandoes

Record details

Name
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Sandoes
Date
[1996]
Citation
CILL 1208, CA
Keywords
Expert witness
Summary

The claimant appealed against being refused an extension of time for exchange of witness statements and experts' reports in a professional negligence claim. The Court of Appeal, allowed the appeal and set out guidance to courts on adherence to time limits (this goes beyond expert witness issues).

The court described these guidelines as issued by agreement with the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellor:

  1. 'Time requirements laid down by the Rules and directions given by the Court are not merely targets to be attempted; they are rules to be observed.
  2. At the same time the overriding principle is that justice must be done.
  3. Litigants are entitled to have their cases resolved with reasonable expedition. Non-compliance with time limits can cause prejudice to one or more of the parties to the litigation.
  4. In addition the vacation or adjournment of the date of trial prejudices other litigants and disrupts the administration of justice.
  5. Extensions of time which involve the vacation or adjournment of trial dates should therefore be granted only as a last resort.
  6. Where time limits have not been complied with, the parties should co-operate in reaching an agreement as to new time limits which will not involve the date of trial being postponed.
  7. If they reach such an agreement they can ordinarily expect the court to give effect to that agreement at the trial and it is not necessary to make a separate application solely for this purpose.
  8. The court will not look with favour on a party who seeks only to take tactical advantage from the failure of another party to comply with time limits.
  9. In the absence of an agreement as to a new timetable, an application should be made promptly to the court for directions.
  10. In considering whether to grant an extension of time to a party who is in default, the court will look at all the circumstances of the case including the considerations identified above.'

(Note: The above case is described by the editors of CILL as representing 'some softening' of Beachley Property v Edgar.)