Grigor v Stock; Stock v Stock

The case of Grigor v Stock; Stock v Stock involved family provision proceedings, where the court was asked to decide on the final orders following consent orders presented by the parties. The court was faced with ensuring that all contentious issues were properly disclosed and addressed before final orders were made. The legal issues before the court centred on the duty of legal practitioners to assist the court in achieving a just, quick, and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings, even after the parties had settled in principle. Additionally, the case raised questions about the appropriate use of email communications with judges' chambers, particularly in alerting the court to disputes between parties regarding the proposed orders.

The court emphasised the enduring duty of legal practitioners to assist in achieving the overriding purpose of the proceedings, even at the final stage of making orders. This duty was not limited to the point where the parties had settled in principle but extended to the final conclusion of the proceedings. Furthermore, the court underscored that legal practitioners were not precluded from using email communications with judges' chambers to alert the court to disputes between the parties regarding the proposed orders and to request that the matter be relisted so that any contentious matters could be addressed in open court.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the parties had presented consent orders, and the court had initiated follow-up to ensure all issues were resolved. The court found that while the plaintiffs' solicitors had responded approving the orders, no response was received from the defendant's solicitors. After further correspondence and a relisting of the matter, it was revealed that the parties had a contentious issue regarding the orders which had not been disclosed to the court. The court concluded that the reason for the nondisclosure arose from a misapprehension regarding the appropriate communication with the court. The court ultimately made the final orders expeditiously.

The final orders were made, reflecting the court's emphasis on the importance of all parties fulfilling their duty to assist the court in achieving a just, quick, and cheap resolution of the proceedings. The court's decision also highlighted the need for clear and appropriate communication between the parties and the court, particularly when contentious issues arise regarding the proposed orders.