Seems like this must be a very judge-dependent and judge-controlled thing? I imagine lawyers must want to try to throw in the kitchen sink and have tons and tons of witnesses going down every rabbit hole, but the judge has to say no to some things.
Do they set a time limit based on the complexity of the topic? Do they make a gut feel call about whether any particular witness actually adds new information and say “that’s enough”?
Can the judge “game” this and favor one side (intentionally or unintentionally if they don’t believe the side saying that more complexity and duration of witnesses is needed, like for example in a complicated technical case?)
I read about the judicial system being swamped, but are judges using time limits to help move things along better?
In: 2116
In England/Wales it’s generally agreed between the parties – “we think this will take x days to be heard”. If they are in agreement then in the general run of things then the Court will list it for that long.
The judge can have a view of course, and may offer some input at reviews among the way if they think the estimate is wildly out. But that’s rare – generally the solicitors and barristers have a good handle on how long it’s likely to run and the Court let themselves be guided by that.
In the run up to the trial you literally produce a timetable – first half day is reading time for the judge, then opening submissions that afternoon, then day 2 and 3 are claimant witnesses, day 4 and 5 are respondent witnesses, day 6 is the single joint expert etc etc. The sides each also provide a skeleton argument to the judge (a very brief explanation of the legal position they’ll be taking) along with a list of cases they’ll be relying on and why). The whole purpose is to hit the ground running once the case gets under way and to spend as little time in court as possible.
You don’t want the case to run longer then necessary for several reasons.
Firstly trial is expensive – the large bulk of a case’s legal costs comes in that final week or so. So it’s not in the client’s interest. As a rule of thumb, for a 2 year case costing 50k, I would expect 20-25k of that to come in the final 3 weeks.
Secondly – Judges will also have very little patience with anyone trying to spin out a hearing unnecessarily. Not only does that set the Court against you, but it also can impact the costs you can recover at the end if you win. If you’ve been a tool and wasted everyone’s time then you can expect your costs recovery to be severely limited as punishment.
Thirdly, often there aren’t actually lots of issues in dispute. Judges and decent lawyers are very good at cutting through the extraneous stuff and getting to the nub of it. I’ve seen people (generally people acting for themselves) get absolutely lost in the details and judges have very little patience for it. You can expect to be shut down very quickly.
Also – by the time you get into Court you have had a couple of years to work over everything in detail and to identify exactly what is accepted and what isn’t. The court room is not a place generally where fresh stuff comes to light – normally it’s two sides saying “we have identified that we disagree on this issue – here’s the evidence in support of each parties position, can you make the call please?”.
Edit – this applies to England/Wales civil stuff, no idea how it’s done elsewhere!
Latest Answers