The High Court has called into question the approach taken by a prominent legal firm in a recent case, highlighting procedural issues that have affected the court proceedings.
The High Court has criticised a major law firm for requesting changes to a draft judgment without notifying the opposing solicitors, a move deemed ‘regrettable’ by Deputy Judge Pat Treacy. The firm, representing a medical products company in a compensation claim under the Patents Act, submitted proposed amendments after the draft judgment’s circulation deadline, causing procedural complications.
Deputy Judge Treacy noted that the opposing party’s solicitors, Kingsley Napley, only became aware of these changes when copied into an email sent to the court. Kingsley Napley labelled the amendments unnecessary and voiced objections due to the lack of prior discussion, a sentiment echoed by the judge. The firm’s justification centred around delays caused by the vacation period and maintained Kingsley Napley had a subsequent opportunity to express their client’s stance.
Court of Appeal authority dictates that any exceptional circumstances warranting draft reconsideration require immediate notification of the opposing parties to allow objections. Judge Treacy criticised the law firm’s failure to do so, noting the adverse impact on procedural efficiency and party costs. While some minor clarifications were made by the judge following the proposals, the lack of communication was deemed unsatisfactory.
Ultimately, the High Court’s reproach serves as a reminder of the critical importance of transparency and communication in legal proceedings, especially regarding draft judgments. The highlighted procedural mishap underscores the need for adherence to established legal protocols.
