Judicial case management is a delicate work of art. On one hand, it is said that justice hurried is justice buried. The courts must carefully adjudicate each case based on its merits to ensure that an accurate outcome would be realised. To this end, judges are often concerned with obtaining all available evidence before assessing each claim. Yet, on the other hand, it has been remarked that justice delayed is justice denied. As such, the courts are also mindful that cases must move along in a fairly expeditious manner. The prevailing attitude of both English and Singapore courts is therefore to balance the enforcement of procedural discipline with the imperative to judge a case on its substantive merits. This article argues that such a "balancing" approach is not the most appropriate philosophy to adopt. Instead, it proposes a "lexical priority" approach where procedural discipline occupies a prior position to substantive justice, preceding the latter by way of a precondition. It offers justifications for the "lexical priority" approach and exposes the shortcomings of the "balancing" approach by examining the English and Singapore jurisprudence on case management.