Has Woolf failed big-ticket litigation? Matthew Lawson
It may seem an odd proposition that the Woolf reforms, with their legitimate aims of improving access to justice and reducing the cost of civil litigation, have, 10 years on, failed a constituency many would argue least worthy of assistance in the first place.
Commercially powerful litigants with perceived deep pockets are often portrayed as the manipulators of the civil justice system, clogging up the courts with bullying claims or pressuring opponents with lesser resources into derisory settlements. But large commercial enterprises (in which I include insurers and large professional services organisations, as well as major corporates, banks and other financial institutions) need an effective and cost efficient civil justice system as much as anyone, to provide certainty by the adjudication of legitimate commercial disputes.
Lord Woolf may not have had them at the forefront of his mind when he wrote his reforms but in many ways, this constituency stood to benefit most from their implementation. The ideas of early settlement or summary determination of unsuitable disputes,
