header-logo header-logo

21 July 2025
Categories: Legal News , Profession , In Court
printer mail-detail

Rat infestations, incompatible IT & lengthy delays

MPs have called for an ‘urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch’ review’ of the ‘dysfunctional’ county court system, to be launched by next spring at the latest

The cross-party Justice Committee published a devastating report this week, 'Work of the county court', highlighting the ‘unacceptable and increasing delays across nearly all types of claims. Ministry of Justice statistics for the quarter to March 2025 show an average wait of almost 50 weeks from issue to trial for small claims, and nearly 75 weeks for fast, intermediate and multi-track claims.

Rats, flies, rotting pigeons and leaky roofs featured among a list of building hazards encountered by judges, lawyers and other court users. At South Shields the courtroom ceiling collapsed, while at Leeds the heating was jammed on during the heatwave of 2022.

The MPs criticised the decade-long Reform modernisation programme which ‘under-delivered’, resulting in a multitude of incompatible systems and outdated paper-based processes. They expressed specific concern about the cost and delays caused by the need to lug heavy paper files around the country. They recommended, instead, that a single case management system be introduced and future digital reforms be co-designed with users and rolled out only when proven reliable.

Block listing, where multiple cases are scheduled for a specific time slot, also came under fire for leaving court users waiting around for their case to be called, out of pocket for their day’s earnings while incurring travel and legal expenses. The committee recommended litigants be able to recover their legal, travel and subsistence costs if their case is listed but not heard.

It is difficult to contact the individual courts—some did not answer their phones while others could only have messages passed to them through a central inquiry line. Callers were sometimes asked to put their question in an email and warned it could be 10-12 weeks before the email is opened. The committee recommended there be a clear point of contact and allocated claims handlers.

Andy Slaughter MP, the committee’s chair, said the county court was ‘beset by unacceptable delays, recruitment and retention issues across frontline staff and the judiciary, and a complex “patchwork” of paper-based and digital systems… It is not tenable to continue without fundamental reform’.

Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘If the government properly funded our courts and those who work in them, thousands of people would be freed from the legal limbo caused by long waits.’

Categories: Legal News , Profession , 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