 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Examples of some of the different contexts in which "proportionality" takes on
varying meanings include the following,
namely, "proportionality" as requiring :-
(a)
litigation costs to bear a reasonably proportionate relationship with the amount
at stake in the dispute;
(b)
procedures to be appropriately matched
to the case, that is, ensuring that
elaborate procedures (which may be appropriate for big and complex cases) are
not used unnecessarily in ordinary cases;
(c)
applications for drastic forms of relief, such as Anton Piller orders or orders for
committal for contempt, to be avoided where such relief would be
disproportionate in the circumstances;
(d)
procedural sanctions and orders to be issued in a manner proportionate to the
requirements of procedural and substantive justice, for instance, not striking out
the entire claim when a lesser sanction would suffice, and not ordering
extensive particulars or further discovery where the benefits are likely to be
slight and would not justify the expense and effort involved;
(e)
cases to be instituted in the correct tribunal, avoiding the High Court where the
simpler procedures of a lower court or tribunal would suffice; and,
(f)
procedural orders to be made which are proportionate to the financial position
of each party (in accordance with CPR 1.1(2)(c)(iv)).
As the editors of the White Book point out, while in CPR 1.1(2)(c) the word
"proportionate" is used in the technical sense defined in other Rules and practice
directions :-
"the words ‘proportionate' and ‘disproportionate' are used in a general sense and not for the
specific purpose of drawing attention to this aspect of the overriding objective."
Notes
See White Book 1.3.5.
|
 |
|