Who notifies the other party in a case?

Carawaystick

Do the courts service notify the other party if an ex parte application is brought or who?

de paper wrote:

Mr Justice A said he was not prepared to hear Mr B’s application for permission to bring his challenge in the absence of the other side. He directed the application be heard by the High Court in the presence of the DPP on <date>.

hullaballoo

No, ex parte means the other side are not on notice. Only certain applications can be brought this way and most are purely procedural.

There are rules that govern how ex parte applications are made, probably the most important of which is that they are made with full disclosure of all material facts, whether they help or hinder the applicant.

Carawaystick

I probably wasn't clear.

The case I'm talking about refers to a person applying to the high court to get a trial stopped, but the judge said the dpp had to be there and the case was adjourned.

My main question is who notifies the dpp in circumstances like this?


Is it not ex-parte when someone goes to get an interim injunction when the other side is not there? Or are you talking about a full hearing with s procedural decision?

Peregrinus

If you are bringing an application which is not ex parte, then it's up to you to serve notice on the other side. The rules of court have requirements about how you have to notify the other side. If for some reason you can't notify as required by the rules, then you go into court, explain the problem and ask for an order for "substituted service" (i.e. allowing you to serve notice on the other side by some non-standard method). That application will be ex parte, obviously.

The requirements for serving notice will vary depending on the nature of your application and the level of the court in which you are bringing it. Note that if you comply with the applicable requirements you have "served notice" even if, in fact, the respondent doesn't know. E.g. if the court rules require you to serve notice on a company by sending a letter to the company's registered office by ordinary post and you do that, you're good. You don't care if they never open or read the letter, or if they have in fact moved away and forgotten to update the details of their registered office - it's not your problem.

In this case, serving notice on the DPP is easy. It's a public office; they'll accept service of proceedings, and they'll read what is served on them.

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

I probably wasn't clear.

The case I'm talking about refers to a person applying to the high court to get a trial stopped, but the judge said the dpp had to be there and the case was adjourned.

My main question is who notifies the dpp in circumstances like this?


Is it not ex-parte when someone goes to get an interim injunction when the other side is not there? Or are you talking about a full hearing with s procedural decision?

Usually the High Court judge will set out in the order how and upon whom service is to be effected and if needed grant short service of the notice of motion. That notice will be served with the order of the HC the ex Parte docket l, the statement of grounds and the affidavits. The order may only require service on chief state solicitor or DPP depending on who the defendants are. I assume the proceedings name the CC judge, Ireland and the AG. To avoid a multitude of people being served as I said the order usually allows only CSSO to be served.

All that in reality has happened is the HC judge has turned a Ex Parte application into one on notice, it happens a fair bit in JR.