“Failure to file acknowledgement of service 54. 9 – (1) Where a person who is served with a claim form has failed to file an acknowledgement of service in accordance with rule 54.8, he – (a) may not take part in a hearing to decide whether permission should be given unless the court allows him to do so; but (b) provided he complies with rule 54.14 or any other direction of the court regarding the filing and service of – (i) detailed grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds; and (ii) any written evidence, may take part in the hearing of the judicial review. (2) Where that person takes part in the hearing of the judicial review, the court may take its failure to file an acknowledgement of service into account when deciding what order to make about costs.”
“67. I turn finally to the question of procedural rigour in public law litigation. In my view, it cannot be emphasised enough that public law litigation must be conducted with an appropriate degree of procedural rigour. I recognise that public law litigation cannot necessarily be regarded in the same way as ordinary civil litigation between private parties. This is because it is not only the private interests of the parties which are involved. There is clearly an important public interest which must not be overlooked or undermined. In particular procedure must not become the master of substance where, for example, an abuse of power needs to be corrected by the court. However, both fairness and the orderly management of litigation require that there must be an appropriate degree of formality and predictability in the conduct of public law litigation as in other forms of civil litigation.”