Is the Commercial Court striking back? asks Khawar Qureshi QC
In the aftermath of the Woolf Reforms of 1998, civil litigation before the High Court has suffered a steep decline. Various reasons have been suggested for this, such as the “front loading” of costs pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), litigation aversion, excessive legal costs and the increase in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (mediation as well as arbitration).
Whatever the reasons for the decline in civil litigation, there was a strong perception among many that the collapse of the Equitable Life and BCCI cases in 2006 after lengthy, expensive, and protracted litigation would act as an even stronger disincentive to parties locating their disputes before the Commercial Court.
It was plain from these cases that “active case management” and “proportionality” were concepts which had yet to find real root in the approach of judiciary as well as the legal profession.
For the judiciary, the desire to allow the adversarial process to take its course coupled with the lack
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
