Court Gives Guidance on Overriding Objective: Dentskevich V Strachan [2025]JRC053

In a recent decision (Dentskevich v Strachan 25-Feb-2025) the Master of the Royal Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for a split trial and, in doing so, gave some clear guidance as to the responsibility of litigants and their lawyers to cooperate, with the Court and each other, in the furtherance of the overriding objective.  As the Court noted, the overriding objective of the Royal Court Rules is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.  This includes active case management on the part of the Court and enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions, and orders made.  The parties to litigation are required to assist the Court in furthering the overriding objective.

The Master held that the parties’ representatives are required to cooperate with one another and assist the Court to manage the case to a conclusion.  In complex personal injury cases, this includes the sharing of relevant information in early course.  Here, despite the accident occurring over five years ago, it appeared that very limited medical evidence had been obtained and information on quantum had not been provided to the Court.

The Court was critical of Mr Scott Rigby, of Stewarts Law, an English firm which had been instructed by the Plaintiff and which appeared to have day-to-day conduct of the litigation.  Mr Rigby was criticised for adopting: “an obstructive stance in that he failed to progress medical appointments, failed to respond to correspondence, and … pursued his own agenda rather than complying with the orders made.”  He was further criticised for his interactions with certain experts, the Master declaring himself “singularly unimpressed… with the manner in which they came to opine:…”.  The Master criticised Mr Rigby for asking leading questions of the Plaintiff’s expert witnesses and failing to disclose information about the instructions he had given to the relevant experts as well as failing to ask pertinent questions of the experts on the impact of a split trial.  The Court was critical of the Plaintiff’s legal team for having “failed to progress the claim or to comply with the directions given…”.

This is a clear reminder that the Court takes its responsibilities in active case management seriously and it expects the parties to do the same. It is important that Jersey cases are run by Jersey lawyers, who are regulated by the Jersey Law Society and directly answerable to the Royal Court.

Related articles

Dentskevich v Strachan 25-Feb-2025

Quarterly Law Reports