Courts. Policy or Law?
Discussion
A government consultation paper asks the following question
What should be the purpose of such a process? Should the court's main aim be to ensure that parties comply with the terms of agreements? Or should it aim to punish breaches already made and to deter future breaches?
For context, the previous question is
Do you think the court should have specific jurisdiction to take into account failures to comply with the Ofcom Code of Practice during the negotiation stage? For example, in awarding costs or providing some other remedy?
Should a court be expected to ensure parties comply with terms of agreements, or indeed punish breaches? Or should it simply judge a case based on it's merits? I'd be interested in others views.
What should be the purpose of such a process? Should the court's main aim be to ensure that parties comply with the terms of agreements? Or should it aim to punish breaches already made and to deter future breaches?
For context, the previous question is
Do you think the court should have specific jurisdiction to take into account failures to comply with the Ofcom Code of Practice during the negotiation stage? For example, in awarding costs or providing some other remedy?
Should a court be expected to ensure parties comply with terms of agreements, or indeed punish breaches? Or should it simply judge a case based on it's merits? I'd be interested in others views.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff