header-logo header-logo

22 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , In Court
printer mail-detail

Full review of county court rejected

Ministers have rejected the Justice Committee review’s key recommendation for the ailing county court system—an ‘urgent and comprehensive’ review by spring at the latest

In July, the cross-party parliamentary committee published a devastating review, ‘Work of the county court’. It found the county court system to be ‘dysfunctional’, citing building hazards such as leaky roofs and rats, as well as incompatible IT systems despite a decade-long digital upgrade project. Phone calls and emails to individual courts went unanswered while cases were subject to ‘unacceptable and increasing delays’, averaging 50 weeks from issue to trial for small claims and nearly 75 weeks for fast, intermediate and multi-track claims (according to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) quarterly statistics up to March 2025).

Responding last week, however, the MoJ said: ‘Rather than focusing on a root and branch review of the county court, the government is keen to focus on taking tangible and practical steps to improve the operation of the county court—which will benefit everyday users—without further delay.’  

The MoJ said ‘promising progress’ has been made, highlighting that improvements to the document management system through the Civil Auto File Share (CAFS) project will be delivered by the end of the year. ‘CAFS will end the slow and costly practice of the Civil National Business Centre producing paper files and posting them to courts with the risk of them being mislaid and where they then need to be stored,’ it said.

Andy Slaughter MP, chair of the Justice Committee, responded that a comprehensive review remains ‘essential’ as ‘without it, it is unclear how fundamental reform will be achieved’.

CILEX president Sara Fowler said ‘a postcode lottery’ operates with ‘significant delays’ in large cities and more efficient processing in smaller cities. She called for more remote hearings where appropriate and an independent analysis of spending and future funding needs.

Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll