ABSTRACT
Even before the introduction of the CPR, there was judicial criticism of the use of interim applications for detailed consideration of evidence and extended legal argument (see the case of Derby and Co Ltd v Weldon (No 1) [1990] Ch 48, CA, where the hearing of the interim application took 26 days and the documents to appeal the judge’s order consisted of several thousand pages of affidavits and exhibits). In that case, Parker LJ referred with approval to Lord Templeman’s comments in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 where he said ‘that [interim applications] should be measured in hours not days, that appeals should be rare and that [the Court of Appeal] should be slow to interfere’ (p 465). He also advocated costs orders being made against parties who used interim applications to try to persuade the court to resolve disputed questions of fact or against those who made detailed arguments on difficult points of law relating to the underlying claim (p 58F-G).
