header-logo header-logo

22 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , In Court
printer mail-detail

Full review of county court rejected

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll