ESIC Stenographer study materials
ESIC Stenographer study resources

The cause list that is not yet determined

ESIC Stenographer · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

The cause list that is not yet determined

Five claim files - P, Q, R, S and T - must be listed for hearing, one per day, from Monday to Friday of the coming week. The listing clerk has recorded four conditions settled by the bench:

  1. Q must be listed on Tuesday.
  2. R must be listed exactly two days after P.
  3. S must not be listed on Friday.
  4. T must be listed before R.

A colleague says the list is now fully determined and starts writing out the cause list. You are asked to check it before it goes to the Registrar at 5 p.m. There is no scope for a second correction once it is signed, and the Registrar will not accept a cause list that offers alternatives.

One further remark was made in court - "T is not on Monday" - but the clerk cannot confirm whether the bench adopted it as a condition or was merely thinking aloud.

1. Is the schedule uniquely determined by the four recorded conditions? Test every possible placement of P and R.

Read the worked answer

Q takes Tuesday, so P, R, S and T occupy Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. "R exactly two days after P" allows only Monday→Wednesday or Wednesday→Friday (Thursday→Saturday falls outside the week; Tuesday is taken by Q).

Try P = Monday, R = Wednesday. The free days are Thursday and Friday, so both S and T must go there. But condition 4 requires T before R (Wednesday), and Monday and Tuesday are already occupied by P and Q. No slot exists - this branch is impossible.

Try P = Wednesday, R = Friday. Free days are Monday and Thursday. S is not on Friday, which is satisfied either way, and T before R is satisfied either way. That yields two valid lists:

(a) T Mon, Q Tue, P Wed, S Thu, R Fri; (b) S Mon, Q Tue, P Wed, T Thu, R Fri.

So the answer is no - the four conditions admit exactly two schedules, and the colleague's claim is wrong. Signing either one without resolving the ambiguity would be a guess dressed up as an order.

2. What is the minimum extra condition needed, and does the unconfirmed remark supply it?

Read the worked answer

The two surviving lists differ only in the Monday/Thursday placement of S and T. Any single condition that separates them suffices, and the cheapest such condition is one that pins either S or T to a named day or to a named position relative to the other.

The unconfirmed remark - "T is not on Monday" - is exactly such a condition, and it is minimal: it kills list (a) and leaves list (b), T on Thursday and S on Monday. Note that "S is on Monday" or "T is on Thursday" would do the same job; the remark is minimal but not unique.

However, minimality is not the same as certainty. The remark was made in open court and the clerk cannot say whether the bench adopted it. The correct course before 5 p.m. is therefore not to pencil it in silently but to have the clerk seek confirmation, and, if confirmation cannot be obtained, to note the ambiguity for the Registrar rather than to sign a list that may contradict the bench's oral direction. A defective cause list is a listing defect; a knowingly guessed one is a disciplinary matter.

3. The colleague argues: "P is Wednesday and R is Friday in both lists, so the rest cannot matter much." Evaluate.

Read the worked answer

He is right about the fixed part and wrong about its significance. What is fixed is Q on Tuesday, P on Wednesday and R on Friday - three of the five days. What varies is which of S and T sits on Monday and which on Thursday, and that is precisely the variable the bench cared about when it said T must precede R and S must avoid Friday.

In a cause list the sequence governs who is heard when, and a party listed on Thursday instead of Monday loses three days of preparation or, if they are travelling, may not be heard at all. A wrong sequence is not a cosmetic error that can be fixed by an announcement on the day; it can amount to a denial of hearing, and it is the sort of point that is raised in appeal.

So the correct reasoning is: the shared part of the two lists is the part that needs no decision, and the differing part is the part that needs one. "It cannot matter much" is exactly the reasoning that produces a correction on Monday morning.