2. If both the opposing party and I agree on the case management directions, what should we do in the next step?

2. If both the opposing party and I agree on the case management directions, what should we do in the next step? 

Within 28 days after the close of pleadings, parties to proceedings should complete a timetabling questionnaire (“TQ”) providing information about their cases and on how they intend the case to be progressed. The court will consider the TQs and other documents filed to decide what directions are needed and what the timetable should be.  

For more information, please refer to “How will the Court give directions for the management of a case before the commencement of a trial?”. 

If the parties have come to an agreement that certain case management directions should be made, they can ask the court to make those directions. This can be done by procuring and filing a consent summons setting out the agreed directions, within 14 days of the plaintiff receiving the TQs from all defendants, or upon the expiry of the defendants’ time to file their TQs, whichever is earlier. If the court agrees with the orders sought in the consent summons, it can grant an order in accordance with the consent summons without a hearing.    

The case management directions the parties can agree on include, e.g., whether expert evidence is required, any discovery necessary, or whether the parties would seek a stay of proceedings (put the case on hold) to attempt mediation. 

In some cases, the parties may reach agreement on case management directions even before they are required to file TQs. If that is the case, the parties may consider filing a single set of TQ containing the joint views of the parties together with a consent summons containing the directions which they invite the court to make. 

Although the court will give great weight to the directions and time limits agreed by the parties in deciding the directions going forward, litigants should note that the court does not “rubber stamp”, i.e., necessarily give approval of any consent summons. The court retains discretion to express its refusal, or even override the agreement if the case management directions sought by the parties are considered unreasonable.  

In one case, the parties signed a consent summons to have a striking-out application adjourned, but the striking-out application itself was dismissed by the court because it held the point of view that the case was ready to set down for trial, which should last for just 2 days. The court viewed that allowing the striking-out application to proceed and cause indefinite delay, given that the case had gone on for more than a decade, is wholly disproportionate.