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: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

Nick Vernon of Walkers on swapping Birmingham for Bermuda and building an employment practice by the sea

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Global firm re-elects CEO for second term

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Business appoints managing director of operational excellence

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll