I would be interested in comments on the following. It is my understanding the following is universally paramount:
3. PARAMOUNT DUTY TO THE COURT AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
3.1 A solicitor’s duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty.
With this in mind:
When a Judge allows a case to proceed in their court and a defendant is not at equity with a plaintiff, do the Judges breach their paramount duty, the administration of justice?
How is it when, a Judge allows a hearing to proceed when a defendant is not at reasonable equity with a plaintiff such that they do not have reasonable opportunity of presenting their case under conditions that do not disadvantage them, the judge is not in breach of their paramount duty, that being the administration of justice?
By extension, should a judge refuse to hear a case until a defendant has reasonable opportunity of presenting their case under conditions that do not disadvantage.
Post by Michael Sanderson (Author)