header-logo header-logo

Full review of county court rejected

22 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , In Court
printer mail-detail
Ministers have rejected the Justice Committee review’s key recommendation for the ailing county court system—an ‘urgent and comprehensive’ review by spring at the latest

In July, the cross-party parliamentary committee published a devastating review, ‘Work of the county court’. It found the county court system to be ‘dysfunctional’, citing building hazards such as leaky roofs and rats, as well as incompatible IT systems despite a decade-long digital upgrade project. Phone calls and emails to individual courts went unanswered while cases were subject to ‘unacceptable and increasing delays’, averaging 50 weeks from issue to trial for small claims and nearly 75 weeks for fast, intermediate and multi-track claims (according to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) quarterly statistics up to March 2025).

Responding last week, however, the MoJ said: ‘Rather than focusing on a root and branch review of the county court, the government is keen to focus on taking tangible and practical steps to improve the operation of the county court—which will benefit everyday users—without further delay.’  

The MoJ said ‘promising progress’ has been made, highlighting that improvements to the document management system through the Civil Auto File Share (CAFS) project will be delivered by the end of the year. ‘CAFS will end the slow and costly practice of the Civil National Business Centre producing paper files and posting them to courts with the risk of them being mislaid and where they then need to be stored,’ it said.

Andy Slaughter MP, chair of the Justice Committee, responded that a comprehensive review remains ‘essential’ as ‘without it, it is unclear how fundamental reform will be achieved’.

CILEX president Sara Fowler said ‘a postcode lottery’ operates with ‘significant delays’ in large cities and more efficient processing in smaller cities. She called for more remote hearings where appropriate and an independent analysis of spending and future funding needs.

Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll