Under the overriding objective, which approach actively manages a claim?

Under the overriding objective, which approach actively manages a claim?

• A. Hearing every issue in full at once
• B. Specifying issues needing full investigation and disposing of others summarily
• C. Delaying decisions to avoid costs
• D. Waiting for the other party to propose a track

Answer: (B)

Active case management under the overriding objective means directing the flow of the claim to achieve a just, speedy, and cost-efficient resolution. The best way to do this is to identify which issues actually need full investigation and to dispose of the rest summarily. This narrows the dispute early, focuses resources on the pivotal points, and allows the case to progress toward trial or settlement without unnecessary delay or expense. It embodies proactive management by separating core disputes from peripheral ones and making strategic decisions about what must be proved. Hearing every issue in full at once ignores proportionality and can waste time and costs. Delaying decisions to avoid costs just prolongs the dispute and increases overall expense. Waiting for the other party to propose a track is passive and doesn’t reflect the court’s duty to actively manage the case.

Active case management under the overriding objective means directing the flow of the claim to achieve a just, speedy, and cost-efficient resolution. The best way to do this is to identify which issues actually need full investigation and to dispose of the rest summarily. This narrows the dispute early, focuses resources on the pivotal points, and allows the case to progress toward trial or settlement without unnecessary delay or expense. It embodies proactive management by separating core disputes from peripheral ones and making strategic decisions about what must be proved.

Hearing every issue in full at once ignores proportionality and can waste time and costs. Delaying decisions to avoid costs just prolongs the dispute and increases overall expense. Waiting for the other party to propose a track is passive and doesn’t reflect the court’s duty to actively manage the case.