Short answer. The Rules themselves invite that flexibility. Section 6 of Rule 1 requires liberal construction of the Rules of Civil Procedure to promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action, which supports relaxing a rigid technical reading where doing so would serve — not undermine — that objective.
What the law says
These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
Rule 1, Section 6 — Construction. Read the full provision →
The mandated standard of interpretation
Section 6 does not leave the interpretive approach to a court's discretion in the abstract — it directs it. The Rules 'shall be liberally construed,' language that is mandatory rather than merely permissive. The stated purpose is explicit: securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. That three-part objective — justice, speed, and economy — is the yardstick against which any application of a procedural rule is meant to be measured.
What liberal construction is for
Liberal construction exists because procedural rules are tools for reaching a just result, not obstacles a litigant must perfectly navigate to be heard. Where a rigid, technical reading of a rule would produce an outcome divorced from the merits — dismissing a meritorious case over an inconsequential defect, for instance — Section 6 gives courts the interpretive footing to avoid that result, so long as the more flexible reading still serves the goal of just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition rather than simply excusing carelessness.
It is not a license to ignore the Rules entirely
Liberal construction is a rule of interpretation, not a permission slip to disregard procedure altogether. It operates within the text of Section 6 itself — construction 'in order to promote' the stated objective, meaning the flexibility is anchored to that purpose and not an open invitation to excuse any and every lapse. Courts still weigh whether relaxing a particular requirement actually serves justice, speed, and economy in the specific case, rather than treating liberality as automatic.
What courts look at when applying it
In deciding whether to relax a particular procedural requirement, courts weigh whether doing so would actually advance a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the case, or whether it would instead reward a party's own neglect at the expense of the rules' basic purpose. The standard is not mechanical; it calls for judgment about whether the specific circumstances make strict application counterproductive to the very objective Section 6 identifies. A party invoking Section 6 still has to show some genuine reason the technical requirement should give way in that case, rather than simply asserting liberal construction as a blanket excuse for any procedural shortcoming.