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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll