header-logo header-logo

15 February 2015
Issue: 7641 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Online courts by 2017

The influential Civil Justice Council (CJC) has called for “online courts” to be in operation in England and Wales by 2017.

In a major report, Online Dispute Resolution for Low Value Civil Claims, published this week and backed by Lord Dyson, the CJC recommend that an online dispute resolution (ODR) system be developed to run alongside traditional courts.

Law and technology expert and author of Tomorrow’s Lawyers, Professor Richard Susskind, who wrote the report, said: “This report is not suggesting improvements to the existing system. 

“It is calling for a radical and fundamental change in the way that our court system deals with low value civil claims. ODR is not science-fiction. There are examples from around the world that clearly demonstrate its current value and future potential, not least to litigants in person. 

“On our model, an internet-based court would see judges deciding cases online, interacting electronically with parties. However, our suggested online court has a three-tier structure, and we expect most disputes to be resolved at the first two stages without a judge becoming involved.”

The report calls on Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to set up a pilot as soon as is practicable with a view to rolling out an online court based on the findings. 

Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls and Chair of the CJC, said: “This an important and timely report. 

“There is no doubt that ODR has enormous potential for meeting the needs (and preferences) of the system and its users in the 21st century. Its aim is to broaden access to justice and resolve disputes more easily, quickly and cheaply. The challenge lies in delivering a system that fulfils that objective."

The report explores the case for ODR, looks at the type of issues that could arise and sets out a series of illustrative case studies of current ODR systems in the UK and overseas.

It suggests a three-tier model: dispute avoidance (online evaluation of the problem); dispute containment (trained facilitators provide an objective viewpoint and help the parties to try to reach agreement); and dispute resolution (professional judges decide suitable cases online with an option of telephone hearings - the decisions are as binding and enforceable as court rulings).

The pilot would focus on small claims, complementing the existing small claims mediation process. The report suggests piloting the system in 2015-2016, ahead of full roll-out in 2017.

David Greene, NLJ consultant editor and partner at Edwin Coe, says: “Having worked as an online mediator for eBay I know that that system does work. It’s the way to go. Taking a step further into adjudication is more adventurous because it is likely to press the judge into a much more inquisitorial role. Probably it can only really work in certain types of cases.

“The judicial process is often dependent on seeing the parties and witnesses give evidence. Taking that evidence over the phone would miss that element. It would make more sense to develop video/skype conferencing for the scheme.”

However, a Bar Council spokesperson urged caution: “We must be wary of creating a system which is over-simplified and does not do justice to the circumstances of particular cases.”

Issue: 7641 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll