header-logo header-logo

Briggs Review backs online court

14 January 2016
Issue: 7682 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Litigants bringing claims up to £25,000 could access court without lawyers

The Briggs Review has recommended setting up an online court for claims up to £25,000, which litigants could access without lawyers.

In his interim report of the Civil Courts Structure Review, published this week, Lord Justice Briggs identifies “a clear and pressing need” for an online court, which would give litigants effective access to justice “without having to incur the disproportionate cost of using lawyers.

The online court would process cases in three stages: first, a largely automated, interactive process to identify the issues and provide documentary evidence; second, conciliation and case management by case officers; and third, resolution by judges. On screen, telephone, face-to-face and video meetings would be held to discuss each case.

The case officers would take over some of the judge’s more routine tasks, but parties would have a right to have these decisions reconsidered by a judge.

Briggs LJ is consulting on the basic details of the process. Practitioners are asked for their views on whether the online court should be a branch of the county court governed by the Civil Procedure Rules or entirely separate, what types of claims should be included, the appeal process, and whether the losing side should pay the other side’s costs.

Written responses must be submitted before the end of February.

As for the existing civil courts, Briggs LJ says it is a priority to put in place the structure and software for all the re-organised courts as soon as possible, provide extra training and staff for judges, and ease the burden on the Court of Appeal.

He wants a stronger concentration of civil expertise among the circuit judges and district judges, and for all civil work with a regional connection to be tried in the regions, regardless of value.

Welcoming the interim report, Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, said: “The time is ripe for reform, and it is in any event essential and unavoidable.”

Briggs LJ began his review of civil court structures and judicial processes last July, will publish a fuller consultation by the end of May, and will complete his review by the end of July 2016.

Issue: 7682 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

Gloucestershire firm boosts residential conveyancing team

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

Firm strengthens corporate team in Worcester with new hire

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

Weightmans partner appointed president of London Market Forum of Insurance Lawyers

NEWS
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
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
back-to-top-scroll