tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4958342728134302106..comments2024-03-29T11:10:02.290+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Death by lingering litigationVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85449506497851770982007-02-20T12:38:00.000+00:002007-02-20T12:38:00.000+00:00Is there no equivalent in England and Wales to Rul...Is there no equivalent in England and Wales to <A HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm" REL="nofollow">Rule 11 sanctions in the US</A>? I'm guessing not by the post and comment, but can't judges take a more proactive approach on this issue or is it not possible? I remember at a discovery hearing in Texas (in state court) seeing the judge get up, go to a whiteboard, and draw out the discovery rules for a defence lawyer who had frivolously objected to some discovery. I can guarantee that he went home and read rules before ever stepping back into that court again...Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495155816511137806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75263505708277533922007-02-19T10:58:00.000+00:002007-02-19T10:58:00.000+00:00In a recent case in which I acted for the Defendan...In a recent case in which I acted for the Defendant, the issue that irked the client most was that the Claimant's legal team took every opportunity to miss every deadline and to ignore correspondence. We obtained orders (including an unless order) and complained to the senior partner of the solicitor on the other side - with little effect. We became used to the 11th hour "oops, sorry, no order for costs" or the "we thought we had already done that" communications, followed by the Claimant's representative who turns up to the hearing and tries to convince the court that (now that they have agreed to do what they had failed previously to do) we are wasting the court's time and that we are engaged in "old style litigation".<BR/><BR/>The case management powers of the High Court only work when the parties comply with the CPR without being obliged to do so by further orders. In my experience, the occasions when the case management powers do not work are exactly those where they are most needed. In interim hearings and at the trial proper, masters and judges are simply not interested in looking at how the parties have behaved - even where the Claimant has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to their own trial.<BR/><BR/>The problem can be particularly difficult with IP cases. Excepting this particular case, IP cases are often taken on by solicitors who do not have the requisite expertise. The case is then, effectively, run from counsel's chambers. This has four effects: First, the solicitors become wholly reactive. Secondly, they miss deadlines. Thirdly, there is a "stop-start" approach, with interim periods of paralysis. Finally, whilst barristers are good at many things, the day-to-day management of the litigation process is not usually one of them and costs increase exponentially (and this increase is not recovered on taxation).<BR/><BR/>When sanctions are obtained, the Human Rights Act is then wheeled out to avoid them. <BR/><BR/>Whatever the merits of Mr Burchill's case, there is no excuse for this behaviour and I have great sympathy with him and hope that he succeeds this time in securing procedural compliance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com