King's Inns Civil Procedure common mistakes
King's Inns Civil Procedure · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the Superior Court Rules and the Circuit Court Rules as interchangeable, so the candidate states a Superior Court time limit or form number for a Circuit Court or District Court step.
Candidates learn one set of rules in detail and assume the others mirror it; the Rules of the Superior Courts, Circuit Court Rules and District Court Rules each set their own periods, forms and procedures, and exam questions often deliberately name the lower court.
What to do instead
Build a three-column comparison sheet (Superior, Circuit, District) for every recurring procedural step - entry of appearance, defence, discovery, motions, appeals - and before answering, locate the court named in the question and cite only that court's rule.
Answering a time-limit question with the general rule while ignoring the specific extension, enlargement or shortening mechanism that the facts invite.
Candidates memorise headline periods but not the provisions allowing enlargement of time, and so miss that the correct answer is often 'apply to extend, showing good reason', not 'the claim is dead'.
What to do instead
For every limitation or time period you learn, learn the paired provision on enlargement or extension, who applies, the test applied, and whether the period can be extended after it has expired.
Confusing the procedural consequences of failing to deliver a defence with those of failing to enter an appearance, and so misstates whether judgment in default can be obtained and on what basis.
Both defaults feel like 'the defendant did nothing', but they trigger different applications, different proofs and different entitlements; candidates collapse them into one concept.
What to do instead
Write out a short decision tree for default: has an appearance been entered? has a defence been delivered? is the claim liquidated or unliquidated? is the defendant a minor or a State party? Then state the correct application and what must be proved.
Describing discovery as automatic on the closing of pleadings, without addressing the requirement for the court to be satisfied that documents are relevant and necessary.
Candidates carry over a simplified 'pleadings close, then discovery' narrative from introductory material and do not engage with the discretionary test applied on a discovery motion.
What to do instead
Learn discovery as a two-stage process: voluntary discovery by agreement or request, then a motion where the applicant must show categories of documents are relevant and necessary; be able to state the test and the court's power to limit or impose conditions.
Drafting or describing a pleading by narrating the evidence and the history of dealings rather than pleading material facts, and failing to address the requirement that a pleading be verified.
Candidates write pleadings as if writing a witness statement or a letter before action, because that is the factual style they are most used to; they also forget the verification requirement that attaches to certain pleadings.
What to do instead
Practise converting a fact pattern into numbered paragraphs of material facts only, with the relief claimed at the end, and always add the verification clause where required; in exam answers, expressly note that evidence and argument do not belong in a pleading.
Ignoring the procedural steps that must precede the issue of proceedings - such as a statutory notice, a demand, or a required pre-action step - and advising that a summons or originating document can issue immediately.
Candidates focus on the court process from issue onwards and treat pre-issue requirements as background; the exam frequently tests whether a claim is prematurely brought.
What to do instead
For each cause of action you revise, list any condition precedent to proceedings (notice, demand, statutory waiting period, personal injuries assessment process) and check the facts against that list before advising on issue of proceedings.
Giving an answer on jurisdiction that stops at the monetary limit and does not deal with the nature of the relief sought or the residence of the parties.
Candidates reduce jurisdiction to a single figure, but jurisdiction also depends on whether the relief sought is within the court's power (for example equitable relief, title to land, or judicial review) and on where the defendant resides.
What to do instead
Answer jurisdiction in three moves: (1) the monetary value of the claim, (2) whether the type of relief is within that court's jurisdiction, and (3) the territorial or residence basis; cite the relevant provision for each.
Treating an appeal as a fresh hearing of the whole case and stating the wrong time period or the wrong court for the appeal.
Candidates conflate appeal with retrial and do not distinguish rehearing on the transcript from a full de novo hearing; they also assume the appeal goes to the next court up without checking the statutory route and period.
What to do instead
For each court, record four things: the appeal route, the time limit for lodging the notice of appeal, what the appellate court may do (affirm, vary, remit, substitute), and whether further evidence may be admitted.
Applying for relief in the wrong procedural vehicle - for example seeking summary judgment where the correct route is a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, or seeking discovery by letter where a motion is required.
Candidates know the names of the applications but not the precise circumstances each is designed for, so they reach for the most familiar one rather than the one that fits the facts.
What to do instead
Maintain a one-page table of applications: the name, the procedural basis, the threshold the applicant must meet, the evidence required (affidavit or grounding), and the orders the court can make; test each fact pattern against the threshold before choosing.
Giving advice on costs without identifying the general rule, the discretion of the court, and the specific factors or offers that would displace the general rule in the scenario.
Candidates treat costs as a footnote and recite 'costs follow the event' without addressing the court's discretion, the effect of a settlement offer or lodgment, or the different scales applicable.
What to do instead
Answer costs in three steps: state the general rule, identify the discretionary factors engaged by the facts (conduct, settlement offers, partial success), and state the likely order and on what scale; note where the court retains discretion.