One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR “REASONABLY REQUIRED”: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
- COSTS GROUP AT KINGS CHAMBERS – LOOKING FOR NEW MEMBERS: SEE THE ADVERT HERE
- MAZUR RECORDING – NOW AVAILABLE
- MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON’T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT…
- THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
Top Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON'T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT...
- MAZUR RECORDING - NOW AVAILABLE
- COSTS GROUP AT KINGS CHAMBERS - LOOKING FOR NEW MEMBERS: SEE THE ADVERT HERE
- EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR "REASONABLY REQUIRED": COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
- MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION"? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025.
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
We discussed listing at some length on my table at the HMCTS “reform roadshow”. It seems that even judges see listing as something of a dark art. We agreed that some listing officers are clearly better than others, but we didn’t have much sense of what it is that makes a good one.
One point which came up was that barristers’ clerks (and the court clerks of large solicitors’ firms) often have personal relationships with listing officers (“we send Doug a bottle of claret at Christmas”) which allows them to get the listing tweaked to their convenience. That works well for them, but the system is hopelessly opaque to outsiders.
I also had a case at Cambridge Employment Tribunal which was due to start on a Monday but was adjourned (for 7 months!) on the Friday afternoon because no judge was available. I had already done the reading, for which I did not feel able to charge. On the plus side, at least we were told before the hearing started: I had a case at London Central where everyone turned up only to be told that the judge was only available for 2 days on a 4 day listing. After considering various options, it seemed the only workable solution was to adjourn and relist.
We can understand that these things happen (cases overrun, judges fall ill, etc) but as you say there is no apparent accountability and certainly no transparency for court users.