Hector Robinson examines the sharp end of non-compliance
Whether one practises under a pre or post Woolf procedural regime, it is not uncommon to hear statements to the effect that the rules of the court are intended to be complied with, and not intended to be mere “targets” towards which to aspire. Yet, practitioners have become accustomed to a certain degree of willingness by the courts to exercise its discretion to excuse non-compliance with the rules.
After all, the interests of justice may still be achieved even in the face of non-compliance with the rules, once no party is unduly prejudiced and any attendant inconvenience may be adequately compensated in costs.
But there are those occasions, rare though they may be, when a non-compliant party is faced with the prospect of having his case struck out; when the seemingly toothless dog that the rules sometimes appear to be has somehow developed the ability to bite.
Whether these occasions arise on an application to dismiss for want of prosecution, or to strike out for failing to comply with peremptory orders, such as for
