05/02/2020 Galloway v Frazer & Ors [2016] NIQB 7 (27 January 2016) (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the Court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases. (3) The Court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it – (a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or (b) interprets any rule." [47] The rule in Parker and Schuller was considered by the Supreme Court shortly after Beateson J gave his ruling in Al-Sadi in the case of MNL Capital Limited v Argentina [2011] UKSC 31. Lord Phillips looked at the rule and noted that the authority was an old one and had been "soon lost from sight" until it was "applied with obvious reluctance by Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson in Re Jogia (A Bankrupt) [1988] 1 WLR 484". [48] Since then he noted that it had figured prominently in a significant number of decisions at first instance or in the Court of Appeal. He noted that the overriding principle was for the court to "deal with cases justly, and this involved saving expense and ensuring that cases are dealt with expeditiously." He agreed with submissions that there was no longer any justification for following the decisions relying on the rule in Parker v Schuller. He said at paragraph [78]: "For these reasons I would hold that rule in Parker v Schuller should no longer be applied. The same approach should be taken to an application to amend the pleading that has been served out of the jurisdiction as adopted to any other application to amend a pleading …." [49] Lord Collins with whom Lord Walker agreed, while noting that the Supreme Court "should be especially hesitant to decide points of procedure in appeals in which they do not even arise", concluded that the rule in Parker v Schuller did not arise in the case under consideration but agreed with the general approach of Lord Phillips. He pointed out that in Parker v Schuller itself, Romer LJ (at page 300) based his decision on a ground very close to that of non-disclosure. He said: "… an application for leave to issue writ for service out of the jurisdiction ought to be made with great care and looked at strictly. If a material representation upon which leave was granted in the first instance turned out to be unfounded, the plaintiff ought not to be allowed, when an application was made by a defendant to discharge the order for the issue of the writ and the service, to set up another and a distinct cause of action which was not before the judge on the original application." So, although Lord Phillips comments and those of the other members of the Supreme Court are strictly speaking obiter, they do carry considerable weight. The rule in Parker v Schuller is not binding on this court although obviously any decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales is highly persuasive: see the judgment of Holmes LJ in the Irish Court of Appeal in McCartan v Belfast Harbour Commissioners [1910] 2 IR 470 at 494-495. This was accepted as the proper approach for the courts in Northern Ireland to follow as can be seen from Northern Ireland Railway Transport Board v Century Insurance Co Ltd [1941] NI 77 at 107. However, I consider that I should not apply the rule in Parker v Schuller given the introduction of Order 1 Rule 1(A) as an overarching imperative to be applied by these courts. It makes no sense to have a rule that in some cases will require the court to deal with a case in a manner which is neither just nor proportionate. [50] However, as I have observed, counsel when making an ex parte application, and in particular on applications for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, must make full disclosure to the court. This obligation remains of paramount importance in ensuring that these types of case are dealt with fairly and justly. An application for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction is one which must be approached with the greatest of care. While the court should retain the right to allow a plaintiff to set up other causes of action not before the judge in the original ex parte hearing or to rely on evidence which was available at the original application, but which was not brought to the attention of the judge, it should be slow to do so in the absence of a cogent explanation from counsel as to why those causes of action file:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/Galloway v Frazer & Ors [2016] NIQB 7 (27 January 2016).htm 13/26