header-logo header-logo

11 August 2011
Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Taking the wrong direction?

Civil Justice Council say MoJ court plans would “fetter” access

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has expressed “considerable concern” about proposals to divert claims from the courts by introducing mandatory pre-action directions.

These would be unconstitutional “as a matter of principle and of fact” since they would “place a fetter on access to the courts”, the CJC warned, in its response to the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) consultation on solving disputes in the county courts.

“Mediation and other forms of dispute resolution have an important role but where a civil dispute needs to be decided there must be no doubt that the principal arbiter of civil disputes will be the courts and that access to the courts must be unfettered.

“Mandatory pre-action directions, involving a ‘one size fits all’ approach and delayed access to judicial involvement, are contrary to the active judicial case management principles encouraged by Lord Woolf in the civil procedure reforms. Judges have a fundamental role to play in case management and costs management.

“The consequences of delayed access to judicial involvement can be particularly serious for litigants in person unfamiliar with process. The consequences can also be particularly serious in terms of cost as matters proceed without judicial focus on their direction, their management, or the proportionality of what is being done.”

While there was scope for “further use of mediation”, this should be achieved through “active judicial case management”, the CJC said.

It warned against extending the £10,000 limit on the road traffic accident (RTA) personal injury scheme without detailed risk analysis, since cases between £10,000 and £25,000 in value are often more complex and tend not to fit the RTA Protocol. “By their medical nature they are often not capable of speedy and prompt settlement.”

Extending the scheme to include employers’ liability and public liability claims, excluding occupational diseases, was worth considering, it said, but would require “substantial” time to develop.

The MoJ consultation, launched in March, attempted to tackle the problems of lengthy delays, expensive legal action and claims being brought inappropriately. Three-quarters of claims in the civil justice system are settled after allocation but before trial, according to the MoJ.

Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
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