In R (London College of Finance & Accounting) v SSHD) (2015) EWHC 1688 (Admin) Cobb J’s observations included the following:-

1. CPR 54.16 could not be clearer. It provides that no written evidence may be relied on unless it has been served in accordance with any rule, or direction of the Court, or the Court gives permission. This rule must be faithfully and strictly observed;

2. Orders, including interlocutory orders, for the filing and service of evidence must be obeyed and complied with to the letter and on time.  Court orders are not preferences, requests or mere indications;  they are orders; there is a public interest in enforcing compliance with Court orders, particularly where the breach is serious and/or significant;

3. Any party in a judicial review claim who seeks to adduce evidence outside the parameters of CPR 54.16 is under an obligation to apply to the Court to adduce that evidence or where relevant for a variation of the order granting permission to file. A person who finds himself unable to comply timeously with his obligations under an order should apply for an extension of time before the time for compliance has expired;

4. If it is possible and practicable, any application for permission to rely on new evidence should be determined before the substantive listed hearing, so that the parties and the Court know where they stand and what they have to read;

5. If it is not possible or practicable to make a decision on the admissibility of the new evidence before the hearing, the Court may have to consider converting the substantive or rolled-up hearing to a case-management hearing; costs orders may follow;

6. In order to promote the efficient and proportionate conduct of litigation, parties are not merely required to comply with the rules and court orders, they are also obliged to co-operate with each other;

7. Within the framework of the Rules, the Administrative Court retains powers to manage its cases flexibly and in accordance with the overriding objective; in this regard it will ensure that no unfairness is caused to the parties.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 12:00 am and is filed under Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.