10 years of the CPR
The debate on the effectiveness after 10 years of Lord Woolf’s procedural reforms needs to be seen in a wider context. The complexity of procedure and its cost are responsible for the severe decline in access to justice.
Reducing cost was of course one of Lord Woolf’s chief aims. In this he has failed. Unfortunately, as Michael Zander has convincingly demonstrated, the laudable attempt to introduce a transparent “cards on the table” culture has backfired (see NLJ, 13 March 2009, p 367). In the 60s and 70s, when I represented large numbers of trade union members and others in personal injury claims, the majority were settled at an early stage before any substantial preparation was done, and costs were correspondingly modest. Compensation claims were—and still are—handled largely in solicitors’ offices and never reach a barrister’s chambers, let alone the court. By promoting unnecessarily detailed preparation of cases before settlement—“front loading”—Woolf ignored the reality of the solicitor’s role in dispute resolution.
Similarly, by recommending more intrusive judicial management of the litigation process, he underestimated the ability of the experienced litigation solicitor
