Drawing Up Of Orders

Drawing Up of Orders in relation to the Technology and Construction Court

[rtbs name=”technology-and-construction-court”]Unless the Technology and Construction Court itself draws up the order, it may direct one party (usually the claimant or applicant) to do so within a specified time. If no such direction is given, then the advocate appearing for the Claimant (or applicant) must prepare and seek to agree a draft order and submit it for the judge’s approval within 7 days of the conclusion of the hearing. This is to ensure that the draft is presented to the Technology and Construction Court whilst the case is still fresh in the judge’s mind and he can satisfy himself that the draft is accurate to carry his order into effect. The party charged with drawing up the order must draw up the order and lodge it with the Technology and Construction Court for approval. Once approved, the order will be stamped by the Technology and Construction Court and returned to that party for service upon all other parties. The order should refer to the date on which the order was made by stating “Date order made: [date]”. Orders should be referred to by this date, rather than later dates which reflect the process of submission of the draft order, approval by the judge and sealing by the court. In exceptional cases where the parties cannot agree a minute of order (whether within the specified time or at all), then the party with carriage of the order should submit the order, so far as it has been agreed, to the judge together with a summary of those elements of those parts of the order which are not agreed, and setting out any rival wording proposed by the other side, within the specified time. That communication must be in an agreed form as far as possible stating neutrally the other parties’ objections, and it must be copied to the other parties when it is submitted to the court. The Technology and Construction Court heavily discourages extended satellite correspondence over the precise form of order. If, exceptionally, the judge wishes to hear further submissions on the draft form of order before he approves it he will ask for those submissions. Unilateral further submissions to the Technology and Construction Court as to the minute of order are only to be made in exceptional circumstances (eg. where a party considers that there is a real risk that the Technology and Construction Court is being misled or its position is being seriously misrepresented). Parties who unreasonably refuse to agree a minute of order, or who take up court time arguing over the precise form of minute can expect to have costs orders made against them. It is often the case that the parties, after the hearing, decide that it is sensible to include other directions in the draft order by consent, or to vary the timetable to accommodate such matters. Any such agreement must be clearly indicated in both the draft order (eg. by adding in the matters under a separate heading stating that such matters are being made “By Consent”) and in an explanatory note for the judge submitted with the proposed order.