header-logo header-logo

27 September 2018 / Roger Smith
Issue: 7810 / Categories: Opinion , Technology
printer mail-detail

Missing: stage one

Roger Smith questions why the triage process, vital for the success of the online court modernisation programme, has gone AWOL

Lord Briggs was an inspired choice to send out to prepare the ground for the court modernisation. He produced two thoughtful and well written reports advocating the kind of change that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the senior judiciary of that time wanted. After his opening artillery salvos had levelled the intellectual field, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) arrived with the ground troops to clear up. Alas, in the move to implementation, concepts that he had argued as key were quietly removed. His reports are still brandished as enthusiastic endorsements of a general process even though specific elements of his proposals were countermanded. That raises some wider questions about the nature of the programme and its constitutional accountability.

Small claims & tribunals online

The court modernisation programme endorsed by Lord Briggs is a protean agglomeration of close to 50 different projects that, overall, amount to a revolution in the courts. Each one merits

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll