DOCSLIB.ORG

The Queen's Bench Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Queen's Bench Guide The Queen’s Bench Guide A guide to the working practices of the Queen’s Bench Division within the Royal Courts of Justice 2021 1 Dedication Master Graham Rose died on 21 November 2020. He was a much-valued colleague who provided the most dedicated service to the Queen’s Bench Division over many years. This continued in retirement, with his meticulous assistance in the preparation of the last three editions of the QB Guide. This edition of the QB Guide is dedicated to Graham’s memory by his colleagues, with gratitude and affection. 2 Foreword by The Rt Hon. Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the Queen’s Bench Division As a result of the pandemic, we are now working under conditions that would have been unimaginable a year ago. The speed with which certain changes have been made, the use of remote hearings and the electronic filing of documents for example, has been remarkable. Just as remarkable is the way in which all those involved in the work of the Queen’s Bench Division have adapted to those changes. I would like to pay tribute to the many individuals who have played their part in ensuring that the work of this largest of the divisions of the High Court has continued apace throughout this period. This includes the judges, the Masters, HMCTS staff and professional court users. Against this background, the publication of the seventh edition of this guide is indeed timely and I am delighted to introduce it. The efficient management of court business has always been important but perhaps never more so than now. It promotes fairness, efficiency and reduces costs. This ultimately serves the interests of litigants, the interests of justice and the public interest. The guide has been and continues to be an indispensable resource for all those who practise and litigate in the Queen’s Bench Division and who aspire to do so well. I commend those who have worked so hard to produce it, including Master Fontaine and the individuals she mentions, in particular Master Sullivan who has shouldered the lion’s share of the enormous amount of work that revising the guide has involved. 3 Editorial note by Senior Master Fontaine With the support and encouragement of Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, this Guide has been prepared for the assistance of all who practise or litigate in the Queen’s Bench Division. This seventh edition of the Guide is a full revision and takes into account the following developments since the last edition of the Guide - • The introduction of electronic working and filing in the Central Office of Queen’s Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice, using the CE-File electronic court file and management system; • The changes to CPR 53 and the Part 53 Practice Directions concerning the Media and Communications List; • The changes consequential upon Brexit and the end of the transition period under the UK Withdrawal Act; • Amendments to the Contempt regime; and • Changes to the Enforcement regime. I owe a considerable debt to Master Sullivan for her exceptional work in carrying out a complete overhaul of the previous edition of the QB Guide, without which this publication would not have occurred. I also thank Master Cook for his contribution in relation to the section on the operation of CE-File. Without his work on the IT Project Board the pilot scheme introducing the system would not have operated in such an efficient manner, with teething problems able to be picked up and corrected quickly, and both judiciary and court staff having a good opportunity to become accustomed to working electronically. I am also grateful to those professional court users who participated in the pilot, assisting us in ensuring it work efficiently before it became compulsory, and enabling us to correct any problems before that date. I owe thanks also to Mr Justice Kerr for the revised section on Contempt, to Master Dagnall for his work in relation to Judgments on Land, and to Master Thornett for new content on Change of Solicitor. However, all errors and omissions are mine and I welcome any comments and suggestions from the Profession and all using this Guide for its improvement. Finally users should note that this Guide is subject to any changes imposed by the Covid Regulations. Barbara Fontaine Senior Master 25 January 2021 4 Contents FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 EDITORIAL NOTE BY SENIOR MASTER FONTAINE ............................................................................................. 4 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 10 THE GUIDE........................................................................................................................................................... 10 THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION ................................................................................................................................ 10 THE SPECIALIST COURTS ......................................................................................................................................... 12 THE CENTRAL OFFICE ............................................................................................................................................. 13 THE JUDICIARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 CONTACT DETAILS ................................................................................................................................................. 15 2. LITIGANTS IN PERSON............................................................................................................................ 16 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................................. 16 PRACTICAL ASSISTANCE FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON ........................................................................................................ 17 HEARINGS ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 BEFORE THE HEARING ............................................................................................................................................ 18 AT THE HEARING ................................................................................................................................................... 18 MCKENZIE FRIENDS ............................................................................................................................................... 19 3. THE COURT FILE ..................................................................................................................................... 21 USING CE-FILE .................................................................................................................................................... 21 ISSUING ON CE FILE ............................................................................................................................................... 23 FILING DOCUMENTS ON CE FILE ............................................................................................................................... 23 APPLICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 CONSENT ORDERS ................................................................................................................................................. 24 ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 24 ANONYMITY/CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................. 25 HEARING/TRIAL BUNDLES........................................................................................................................................ 25 PROVISIONAL DAMAGES ......................................................................................................................................... 26 OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT .............................................................................................................. 26 FEES ................................................................................................................................................................... 27 ONLINE PUBLIC SEARCH .......................................................................................................................................... 28 CE FILE PROBLEMS ................................................................................................................................................. 28 4. APPLICATIONS MADE PRE-ISSUE OR AT THE POINT OF ISSUE ................................................................ 29 INTERIM REMEDIES ................................................................................................................................................ 29 DISCLOSURE BEFORE PROCEEDINGS ARE STARTED ........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elections Bill Explanatory Notes
    ELECTIONS BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory Notes relate to the Elections Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 5 July 2021 (Bill 138). ● These Explanatory Notes have been provided by the Cabinet Office in order to assist the reader of the Bill. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. ● These Explanatory Notes explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice; provide background information on the development of policy; and provide additional information on how the Bill will affect existing legislation in this area. ● These Explanatory Notes might best be read alongside the Bill. They are not, and are not intended to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. Bill 138–EN 58/2 Table of Contents Subject Page of these Notes Overview of the Bill 3 Policy Background 5 Legal background 19 Territorial Extent and Application 22 Commentary on Provisions of Bill 25 Part 1: Administration and Conduct of Elections 25 Voter Identification 25 Postal and Proxy Voting 35 Undue Influence 46 Assistance with voting for persons with disabilities 51 Northern Ireland elections 52 Part 2: Overseas Electors and EU Citizens 62 Overseas Electors 62 Clause 10: Extension of franchise for parliamentary elections: British citizens overseas 62 Voting and Candidacy Rights of EU citizens 69 Clause 11: Voting and Candidacy Rights of EU citizens 69 Part 3: The Electoral Commission 84 The Electoral Commission 84 Criminal Proceedings 87 Part 4: Regulation of Expenditure 88 Notional expenditure
    [Show full text]
  • Claim Form Commercial Court N1 (CC) : CPR Part 7 : V4.0 Royal Courts of Justice
    In the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Claim Form Commercial Court N1 (CC) : CPR Part 7 : v4.0 Royal Courts of Justice Claim number Claim title Notes for completion Once completed please e-mail this form to [email protected]. You will receive a 'sealed for service' version and an amendable version of the form by return of e-mail. Claimant(s) Add New Claimant Clear All Claimants Name Address Postcode Country Telephone No Delete this Claimant Add New Claimant Defendant(s) Add New Defendant Clear All Defendants Defendants unknown at present Name Address Postcode Country Telephone No Delete this Defendant Add New Defendant The court office at the Admiralty and Commercial Registry, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL is open from 10:00am to 4:30pm Monday to Friday. When corresponding with the court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim number. Page 1 of 3 Financial information Non-Monetary What type of claim is this ? Monetary Only Part Monetary Relief Court fee breakdown Non-monetary relief fee (if applicable) £0.00 Part 7 fee £0.00 Court fee total £0.00 Solicitors costs (£) GBP. To be assessed Reset Financial Data Brief details of claim You should type into this section a concise statement of the nature of the claim, together with the remedy sought and statement of value where appropriate pursuant to CPR 16.2(1) (Part 7 Claim) or CPR 8.2(Part 8 Claim). If you wish to file more detailed particulars of claim with this claim form you can use the attachment option in section 4b, or you may file them separately at a later stage using the 'MultiPurpose' form which will be available to you once you have issued.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Law an Interim Report
    Electoral Law An Interim Report 4 February 2016 Law Commission Scottish Law Commission Northern Ireland Law Commission ELECTORAL LAW A Joint Interim Report © Crown copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence: visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU; or email [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/electoral-law/ www.scotlawcom.gov.uk ii THE LAW COMMISSIONS The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965. The Northern Ireland Law Commission was set up by section 50 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Each Commission has the purpose of promoting reform of the law. The Law Commissioners for England and Wales are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Bean, Chairman Professor Nick Hopkins Stephen Lewis Professor David Ormerod QC Nicholas Paines QC The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Pentland, Chairman Caroline Drummond David Johnston QC Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven The Chief Executive is Malcolm McMillan The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Law Commission is: The Honourable Mr Justice Maguire The terms of
    [Show full text]
  • In the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man Civil Division Probate Application Form
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN CIVIL DIVISION PROBATE APPLICATION FORM Please refer to the GUIDANCE NOTES to assist you in completing this form. Please use CAPITAL LETTERS The Guidance Notes can be viewed online at https://www.courts.im/court-procedures/probate-and-admin-of-estates/ or they can be obtained by email from [email protected] or by telephoning (01624) 685243 There are guidance notes provided to help you complete this probate application form. They should not be treated as a complete and authoritative statement of the law. Please note that Probate Office staff members are not permitted to give legal advice or offer opinions and therefore if you are in any doubt about your rights, or the procedures to follow in relation to obtaining probate, you should seek legal advice. The Probate Staff can however provide assistance in the completion of this form. Where required, please refer to the Glossary of Terms of commonly used legal expressions in the Guidance Notes. Section A – Details of the Deceased 1. Surname Title MR MRS MISS MS OTHER 2. Forename(s) 3. Alias name(s) – (if any) 4. Address (enter last, full permanent address, including postcode) 5. Place of Domicile 6. Nationality 7. Occupation (if any) 8. Date of Death (Death Certificate attached herewith) 9. Place of Death (enter full address, including postcode) 1 Section B – Details of the Estate 10. Did the deceased leave a Will? YES NO If NO, go to Q.14 11. Date of Will (being submitted with this form) 12.
    [Show full text]
  • SAS V. WPL: a Longstanding Transatlantic Dispute with an East Texas Flavor
    Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury SAS v. WPL: A Longstanding Transatlantic Dispute with an East Texas Flavor NOVEMBER 25, 2020 | BY NATALIE POSGATE SAS Institute and World Programming Limited • The case involved claims of infringement of have sparred against each other in courtrooms “non-literal” elements of a software work, a on both sides of the Atlantic for 11 years. less-frequented claim in intellectual property law that is as nuanced as it is hard to prove; The storied litigation between the two software and programming competitors essentially tells the same tale each time: SAS accuses World • Just as the case was heading to a jury trial Programming of copyright infringement. SAS in September, the complexity of the issues doesn’t prevail. SAS sues WPL somewhere prompted Judge Gilstrap to delay the trial and else but includes additional allegations. WPL set a special hearing to determine the extent counterclaims. And the case has also caused to which the non-literal elements of SAS’ a trans-Atlantic tiff between judges in the U.S. software were copyrightable. “A hearing like and the United Kingdom. that in itself is a rare event, due to the unusual allegations here, but Judge Gilstrap embraced This plot has played out on the home turfs of the need to dig in and make sure the scope of both companies with mixed results. The High SAS’ IP rights were properly framed to a jury,” Court of Justice in London – previously known Caldwell said. as “Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice” – ruled against SAS.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial and Court Statistics 2007 Cm 7467
    Judicial and Court Statistics 2007 Judicial and Court Statistics 2007 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty The Queen September 2008 Cm 7467 £33.45 © Crown Copyright 2008 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 9 78 010174 672 4 Contents Introductory Note 5 1. Appellate Courts 7 2. High Court – Chancery Division 31 3. High Court – Queen’s Bench Division 41 4. County courts (non family) 53 5. Family Matters 81 6. The Crown Court 103 7. Magistrates’ Courts 135 8. Offices of the Supreme Court 159 9. The Judiciary 171 10. Assessment of litigation costs, and publicly funded legal services 185 Annex A: Data Quality and Sources 197 Judicial and Court Statistics 2006 | Introductory Note Introductory Note This Ministry of Justice report “Judicial and Court Statistics 2007”, presents a comprehensive set of statistics on judicial and court activity in England and Wales during 2007. This report was formerly entitled “Judicial Statistics” (for the 2005 edition and earlier years) and was published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and its predecessors.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election
    S. HRG. 112–794 THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 19, 2012 Serial No. J–112–96 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 81–713 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Coons, Hon. Christopher A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ........... 6 Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 4 Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 178 Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island .....
    [Show full text]
  • In the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division
    In the High Court of Justice CO Ref: COI 8229/2011 Queen's Bench Division Administrative Court In the matter of an application for Judicial Review The Queen on the application of GREENPEACE LTD versus SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Application for permission to apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge's decision (CPR Part 54.11, 54.12) Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant and the correspondence about Dr Weightman's final report Order by the Honourable Mr Justice OUSELEY Permission is hereby refused. Reasons: The case is not arguable for the reasons given in the AOS. The claim does not in reality recognise the role of the ONR and site licensing in dealing with flood protection, off -site supplies and communications. The potential for the 8 sites to be protected against flooding does not prevent a later decision by the ONR or by IPC on its advice that anyone can not be protected, nor does it prevent a decision by IPC that the as yet undefined measures have planning implications which tell against a site. The claim that a comparative safety exercise was required ignores the fundamental judgment that all were potentially safe, and a decision that no examination of the degree of margin was required is not irrational. The consultation was lawful. • The costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant in the sum of £ 11813; if the application is renewed, it shall be determined at the renewal hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blair Government's Proposal to Abolish the Lord Chancellor
    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2005 Playing Poohsticks with the British Constitution? The Blair Government's Proposal to Abolish the Lord Chancellor Susanna Frederick Fischer The Catholic University, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Susanna Frederick Fischer, Playing Poohsticks with the British Constitution? The Blair Government's Proposal to Abolish the Lord Chancellor, 24 PENN. ST. INT’L L. REV. 257 (2005). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I Articles I Playing Poohsticks with the British Constitution? The Blair Government's Proposal to Abolish the Lord Chancellor Susanna Frederick Fischer* ABSTRACT This paper critically assesses a recent and significant constitutional change to the British judicial system. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 swept away more than a thousand years of constitutional tradition by significantly reforming the ancient office of Lord Chancellor, which straddled all three branches of government. A stated goal of this legislation was to create more favorable external perceptions of the British constitutional and justice system. But even though the enacted legislation does substantively promote this goal, both by enhancing the separation of powers and implementing new statutory safeguards for * Susanna Frederick Fischer is an Assistant Professor at the Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America, in Washington D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Fairness in Election Contests
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Law Faculty Scholarly Articles Law Faculty Publications 2013 Procedural Fairness in Election Contests Joshua A. Douglas University of Kentucky College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub Part of the Election Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Joshua A. Douglas, Procedural Fairness in Election Contests, 88 Ind. L.J. 1 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Publications at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Procedural Fairness in Election Contests Notes/Citation Information Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 88, No. 1 (2013), pp. 1-81 This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/278 Procedural Fairness in Election Contests JOSHUA A. DOUGLAS* INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 I. ELECTION CONTESTS BY TYPE OF ELECTION .............................................................. 5 A. ELECTION CONTESTS INVOLVING STATE LEGISLATIVE OFFICES ...................... 5 B. ELECTION CONTESTS INVOLVING GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ................................................................................. 9 C. ELECTION CONTESTS INVOLVING
    [Show full text]
  • Election Contests and the Electoral Vote
    Volume 65 Issue 4 Dickinson Law Review - Volume 65, 1960-1961 6-1-1961 Election Contests and the Electoral Vote L. Kinvin Wroth Follow this and additional works at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra Recommended Citation L. K. Wroth, Election Contests and the Electoral Vote, 65 DICK. L. REV. 321 (1961). Available at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra/vol65/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Dickinson Law IDEAS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dickinson Law Review by an authorized editor of Dickinson Law IDEAS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ELECTION CONTESTS AND THE ELECTORAL VOTE BY L. KINVIN WROTH* The extremely close presidential election of 1960 stirred a problem that has long lain dormant. As the result of a recount of the popular vote in Hawaii, Congress, in its joint meeting to count the electoral vote, was presented with conflicting returns from a state for the first time since the Hayes-Tilden controversy of 1877. Since the outcome of the election was not affected, the joint meeting accepted the result of the recount proceeding, and the votes given by Hawaii's Democratic electors were counted.' The once fiercely agitated question of the location and nature of the power to decide controversies concerning the electoral vote was thus avoided. This question, arising from an ambiguity in the Constitution, has long been deemed settled by the statutory provisions for the count of the electoral vote made in the aftermath of the Hayes-Tilden controversy.2 The system for resolving electoral disputes which this legislation embodies has never been tested, however.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Petitions Procedure 4
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 5751, 9 December 2015 Parliamentary election By Isobel White petitions Inside: 1. Orkney and Shetland petition 2015 2. Oldham East and Saddleworth 2010 3. Election petitions procedure 4. Procedure following the decision of the election court 5. Previous election petitions www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number , 9 December 2015 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Orkney and Shetland petition 2015 5 1.1 Judgment 5 2. Oldham East and Saddleworth 2010 7 2.1 Judgment 8 2.2 Mr Speaker’s statement 9 3. Election petitions procedure 11 3.1 Election Courts 11 4. Procedure following the decision of the election court 13 4.1 Judicial review of the election court’s decision 14 5. Previous election petitions 17 5.1 Fiona Jones case 17 Cover page image copyright: UK Parliament image 3 Election petitions Summary On 9 December 2015 the election court in Edinburgh which had heard the petition against the election of Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael at the general election in May 2015 published its judgment. The petition was refused; the judges ruled that it had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Alistair Carmichael had committed an illegal practice under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Four constituents had brought the petition which alleged that Mr Carmichael, who was Secretary of State for Scotland in the Coalition Government, had misled voters over a memo which was leaked to the Daily Telegraph at the beginning of the election campaign. This Briefing Paper also gives details of the election court which heard the petition concerning the election of Phil Woolas in Oldham East and Saddleworth in 2010.
    [Show full text]