 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
17.3
Self-executing orders
The respondents to the consultation referred to above also supported the introduction
of self-executing orders. It is clearly desirable that there should be a shift from
requiring the innocent party to enforce compliance to placing the burden on the errant
party to seek relief. However, in cases where no interlocutory applications have arisen
prior to the summons for directions, a question which arises is whether that shift
should take place by having each direction given at the summons for directions carry a
self-executing sanction, or whether that shift should come into play only in respect of
any specific non-compliance and upon application by the party complaining of such
non-compliance.
In deciding which approach to take, it is important to bear in mind the existence of
other proposed reforms aimed at reducing the incidence of interlocutory applications.
If self-executing sanctions were to be prescribed on the summons for directions, this
could well discourage agreements by the parties to vary non-milestone time-limits by
agreement and without application to the court. With a self-executing order already in
place, the innocent party may find it hard to see why he should, as it were, "let the
other side off the hook". He is likely to feel that he cannot be criticised for allowing
the self-executing order to run its pre-ordained course. Making self-executing orders
on the summons for directions could therefore be counter-productive, leading to less
cooperation and so to more interlocutory applications for relief from the self-executing
sanctions.
|
 |
|