19 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
- MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
- THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
Top Posts
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
- JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
- THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
- AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Dates to avoid in 3-month window submitted to District Registry as directed. ELH agreed and already fixed by court. 5 weeks for listing date to come from DR. In the meantime retained counsel had the County Court list a hearing on a long-running matter with no regard for his availability which now clashes. Still being resolved, incurring considerable cost for client.
Trial listed before a Recorder at a County Court in Devon, £300k contract/equitable interest claim. The Recorder, whose identity was made known the week before trial was the senior partner of the solicitors for the Defendant. Trial adjourned 4 months. Second listing was lost because the judge was commandeered to the CofA. Further 3 months lost, then finally tried at the third attempt.
reply to Anton Smith – the convenience of counsel has nothing to do with listing
Stockport County Court is a serial offender; consistently overlisted. I am there regularly and always have to wait for hours (counting myself lucky to get on at all).
My client last week was very anxious about her (fast track) trial. She was there when the building opened at 9am. The case was adjourned at half 11, with a return date of 31 August. So that’s almost another six months of worry for her.
I should say that the staff there work hard and are very kind. They have a stressful time because of what they are up against each day.
Employment Tribunal in Cambridge last March. 4 day hearing with numerous witnesses and a nervous client cancelled the day before because “no available judge”. It took 6 months to reconvene. It was due to start on a Monday but on the Friday we were again adjourned. We finally got on recently in another court. 12 Months after the trial was supposed to commence and a very world weary client. Neither counsel or I felt able to charge for the first abortive hearing but neither of us filled the time that was lost with much chargeable time.
County Court hearing listed in March. Defendant unable to attend as abroad until after 3rd of April. Both parties agreed to an adjournment to 1st open date after 3rd April, contacted Court accordingly. Adjourned hearing date came through to 29th March!
Are you only interested in listing issues with civil cases, or criminal or family also?
2 day contract trial listed in Swansea last Thursday/Friday. Pulled on the Wednesday due to lack of Judges.
Spouse is complainant in Crown Court case of historical rape and sexual abuse, defendant on remand for 5.5 months waiting trial at Leicester Crown Court, date been in the diary for months. Friday before case due to start on the Monday, case is dropped from list at Leicester CC for reasons unknown and then because of time defendant has already spent on remand, case has to be heard before the end of the month, so moved proceedings to Stoke Crown Court! We are both vulnerable adults with mental and physical health disabilities and the move to Stoke CC was a huge shock, especially as we’d undergone special measures procedures at Leicester, which were useless as we weren’t allowed to replicate them before trial at Stoke.
Back to back at Uxbridge County Court. Waited 2 hours to get on. Judge under time pressure so a 1.5 hour trial was compressed into 1 hour. Definitely a less than ideal situation for everyone involved on both sides of the bench.
I’m surprised at the small number of comments that have been posted
Two cases come to mind.
I had a PI case involving a young woman who lacked capacity, suffered severe disability & was cared for by her parents (who were being called as witnesses). Yeovil County Court listed it for 1 day FT trial and the day before I got a call warning me it could be stood out. Given her particular disability, it wasn’t appropriate for her to be present at trial. I think I recall 3-4 cases being listed and I explained to the listings officer that the Claimant’s parents had to pay for care of the Claimant given her special needs. Matter was stood out at 3.30pm. So not only did we not recover wasted Counsel’s fee from the Defendants when we were successful, the parents also lost out on the costs of looking after the Claimant.
Another PI case was transferred from Truro County Court to Torquay & Newton Abbot County Court the day before trial. Client was unemployed and didn’t drive.
I have increasing numbers of trials which are bumped.
Actually, I can understand why the Court Service does double list, given that a significant proportion of cases will settle at the last minute. It must be frustrating to judges and listing officers alike.
However, if I were running the Court Service, I would do two things: (1) reduce issue fees, but increase hearing fees, so that there is a greater incentive to try to settle before the hearing fee becomes payable rather than on the doors of the court and (2) invest some of those fees in a modern IT system which obtains availability dates from the parties, the court and legal advisors, promptly lists the matter and then keeps everyone informed about how likely the hearing is to go ahead.
While it is understandable that hearings can be ineffective due to allocation of scarce court resources, there is a huge difference between being told of cancellation the day beforehand, and only finding out on the day of the listing after having waited around in court all day.
Edmonton County Court fast-track trial listed for Tuesday 27th, received a call today (26th) informing that the matter is being stood down, no real explanation why.
FT trial at Wakefield County Court. Was vacated and relisted for 2 weeks’ time. Upon calling to check that they had retained the Bundles, discovered they had not. A fresh set had to be put together and sent over. Each Bundle was over 1000 pages. Additional cost of man hours, stationery and courier fees not recoverable.
On the plus side, Wakefield are much easier to get hold of on the phone than many other Courts.
Clerkenwell County Court. Civil case listed for hearing last July. Defs made application for relief. Court listed the application for hearing after the trial date (ie August). Court vacated the hearing on morning (all parties in attendance), due to over listing. Court then heard the Defendant’s application in August. Chased constantly for new hearing date to be advised that the case was closed on court file and concluded at the hearing in August. Repeated calls/e mails and letter to the Senior Clerk. Phoned the court to check if the DJ had read the letter, only to be informed that the case was listed for trial in 1 week time. As at 3 days prior to trial, no order has been received to confirm the date.
Just been notified (at 2.50pm) that a hearing listed tomorrow (11 April 2018) in the County Court at Stafford has been vacated due to unavailability of Judges. Both parties have incurred Counsel’s brief fee.
Further to the complaint about ‘4 months to get a response from court’. we (as respondents) have now been waiting for more than 2 years for Bristol District Registry to make a decision regarding permission to appeal – We feel bound not to enforce the judgment debt in the meantime and each letter or phone call chasing this a further waste of resources.
Wasn’t there an article in the Law Society’s Gazette some years ago about a solicitor who issued in the High Court seeking an order requiring the county court to actually deal with his client’s case? Not sure what the cause of action was but I think it had the desired effect; whether it would now I am not so sure. Also, I think there is (or was) a limited line of authority on when a judge can order HMCTS to pay wasted costs where the court has been at fault rather than either party.