181 |
Lord
Templeman (at 280-1): "Proceedings in which all or some of the litigants indulge in
over-elaboration cause difficulties to judges at all levels in the achievement of a just
result. Such proceedings obstruct the hearing of other litigation. A litigant faced with
expense and delay on the part of his opponent which threaten to rival the excesses of
Jarndyce v Jarndyce must perforce compromise or withdraw with a real grievance. In the
present case the burdens placed on Steyn J and the Court of Appeal were very great. The
problems were complex but the resolution of these problems was not assisted by the length
of the hearings or the complexity of the oral evidence and oral argument. The costs must
be formidable. I have no doubt that every effort was made in the courts below to alleviate
the ordeal but the history of these proceedings is disquieting. The present practice is to
allow every litigant unlimited time and unlimited scope so that the litigant and his
advisers are able to conduct their case in all respects in the way which seems best to
them. The results not infrequently are torrents of words, written and oral, which are
oppressive and which the judge must examine in an attempt to eliminate everything which is
not relevant, helpful and persuasive. The remedy lies in the judge taking time to read in
advance pleadings, documents certified by counsel to be necessary, proofs of witnesses
certified by counsel to be necessary, and short skeleton arguments of counsel, and for the
judge then, after a short discussion in open court, to limit the time and scope of oral
evidence and the time and scope of oral argument. The appellate courts should be unwilling
to entertain complaints concerning the results of this practice." <back> |