Litigants were severely dissatisfied with the excessive delay, backlog and exorbitant costs which plagued

the litigious court system. Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Judicature Annual report (2015), in 2015,
there was a total of 7,686 backlog matters from the civil divisions of the High Court in Georgetown,
Berbice and Essequibo from the year 2014. During 2015, a total of 7998 civil matters were filed in the
respective Registries in the three counties. The courts in 2015 were now burdened by 15, 684 cases to
which only 5,629 matters were resolved at the ending the year in all three counties. Thus, 10,055 civil
matters were still pending at conclusion of 2015; an increase of 2,869 from the previous year. Upon
recognition of this unacceptable trend which ultimately affected a litigant’s expected right to speedy and
timely resolution of legal matters, it was most imperative that the court rules implement an effective
mechanism to aid in the reduction or, in a most utopian judicial system, total eradication of delay and
backlog. Ergo, the technique of case management and case management conferences are mandated in the
New CPR 2016 by virtue of Part 25.

Fiadjoe posits that case-flow/load management is “a compendium phrase used to describe the set of
actions that a court may take to monitor and control the progress of a case before it, from initiation to
post-disposition court work.” It seems therefore, that the techniques of case management and conference
embedded in the CPR are mechanisms through which the former is achieved. Gensler (2010) proffers that
“Judicial case management is closely associated with the expansion of ADR processes, particularly the
increase in judicial involvement in the settlement process.” 1 The Woolf Report states that this is achieved
by “the adoption by courts of a systematic, managerial approach to dealing with caseloads.”2 Ergo, case
management refers to that newly imposed duty of the courts to actively manage cases for the timely, fair
and cost sensitive administration of proceedings as stipulated in Rule 25.01(1)(a-d). This rule stresses
cooperation between parties, the utilization of ADR methods, and amicable settlement of whole or part of
cases. The duty also requires the judge to evaluate the likely benefits in commencing a proceeding and
whether the cost attached is justified along with compliance with rules and orders of the court. Further,
case management rules stipulate the utilization of apt technology. Former AG Williams stated that Studies
have shown that “Case Management Technologies…resulted in 7% average rate of decrease of old
civil… backlog.”3 Guyana’s use of this system provides an interlink between courts and legal personnel to
ensure cases are completed in faster manner. Senior US Judge Wallace also strongly recommended the
use of case management since it creates a structured approach to case reduction and resolution.

2
(Lord Woolf’s Interim Report, Chapter 5, Para 18)

3
https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2018/12/24/20m-allocated-to-further-decrease-backlog-in-the-judiciary/
 Rule 25.02 addresses the court’s power of case management. In a nutshell, these powers authorize the
court to identify issues at an early stage and determine whether cases are suited for trial of resolution by
other means.It can direct how a proceeding is to be heard, separate or consolidated, at the same time or
consecutively. The court can control the progress of the case by extending or abridging time, fixing or
amending a timetable and generally wheel the power to decide dates for the legal proceedings which must
be adhered to. Another power imposed upon the court is to control the conduct of the case; this means
considering whether aspects of the case can be heard without the parties or their physical attendance in
court since video conferencing and written evidence maybe ordered instead. Additionally, case
management conferences (Rule 25.03) are meetings conducted in no less than 2 months but not more than
4, where the judge creates a timetable of dates for trial within the most practicable window while also
fleshing out bases for the parties’ cases and expected dates for the submission of expert reports, witness
statements, cross examination, inter alia.

This writer asserts that the utilization of this technique firmly anchors the power in the hands of the judge
who makes decisions about the administration of the case that will ensure the expeditious conclusion to
disputes, whether it be within the court system or the utilization of ADR. This technique ensures the
litigant’s best interest is considered in case settlement. Thus, because of the strict timelines and
regulations aimed at timely resolution, this technique has directly tackled the issue of backlog and delay
and thus, reduction in costs. On the other hand, many legal minds criticize this technique. Zuckerman
advances in “A Reform of Civil Procedure: Rationing Procedure Rather Than Access to Justice” that
these case-load and management rules do not necessarily reduce costs because money is spent in the
courts and for lawyers to just litigate preliminary issues. This coupled with costs in the dispute can be
disadvantageous to parties.4 Nevertheless, in Guyana, the imposition of these rules has been immensely
beneficial in reducing backlog. This contention is validated by the updated Supreme Court Report 2017
which evinced that between February to December 2017, 2720 cases were filed under the New Rules to
which 1533 cases were concluded in just a span of 10 months. 5 It is a plausible deduction that a
considerable majority of cases filed went through case management. Thus, it is contended that although
1,187 remained in backlog, it was a considerable improvement from the 10,055 civil matters pending at
the end of 2015 under the old Rules. In a Needs Assessment done by UNDP in 2020 it was reported that

5
backlog was further reduced from “6000 to 250.” 6 It is submitted that the rationale of this technique has
remedied an ill of the previous system as cases which do meet the requirements were withdrawn or
dismissed, thus making way for cases which are worthy of trial. The firm hold of the judges on the
litigation process has invariably aided in faster and efficient access to justice.

The CPR was created to better achieve the underlying goals of expeditious, fair and timely trials by
transforming the rules from being lawyer-centered to judge-driven. To this end

aspects of the case can be heard without the parties or their

that CPR strive to remedy the known problems which plagued litigants under the former Rules

6
Needs assessment page 49