In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
Young highlights that a debarred defendant’s pleadings do not vanish: admissions may still narrow issues, and courts retain discretion to permit limited participation where necessary to assist judicial understanding.
Recent cases, including Candy Ventures and the FCA litigation, show courts resisting attempts by debarred parties to cross-examine or advance positive cases, emphasising that such engagement would undermine the order’s purpose. Yet judges sometimes allow minimal submissions to clarify issues or correct errors.
Young concludes that debarment is often less a shortcut to judgment than a nuanced trial management tool, requiring careful drafting and realistic expectations from claimants.
RELATED ARTICLES
