header-logo header-logo

11 August 2011
Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Taking the wrong direction?

Civil Justice Council say MoJ court plans would “fetter” access

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has expressed “considerable concern” about proposals to divert claims from the courts by introducing mandatory pre-action directions.

These would be unconstitutional “as a matter of principle and of fact” since they would “place a fetter on access to the courts”, the CJC warned, in its response to the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) consultation on solving disputes in the county courts.

“Mediation and other forms of dispute resolution have an important role but where a civil dispute needs to be decided there must be no doubt that the principal arbiter of civil disputes will be the courts and that access to the courts must be unfettered.

“Mandatory pre-action directions, involving a ‘one size fits all’ approach and delayed access to judicial involvement, are contrary to the active judicial case management principles encouraged by Lord Woolf in the civil procedure reforms. Judges have a fundamental role to play in case management and costs management.

“The consequences of delayed access to judicial involvement can be particularly serious for litigants in person unfamiliar with process. The consequences can also be particularly serious in terms of cost as matters proceed without judicial focus on their direction, their management, or the proportionality of what is being done.”

While there was scope for “further use of mediation”, this should be achieved through “active judicial case management”, the CJC said.

It warned against extending the £10,000 limit on the road traffic accident (RTA) personal injury scheme without detailed risk analysis, since cases between £10,000 and £25,000 in value are often more complex and tend not to fit the RTA Protocol. “By their medical nature they are often not capable of speedy and prompt settlement.”

Extending the scheme to include employers’ liability and public liability claims, excluding occupational diseases, was worth considering, it said, but would require “substantial” time to develop.

The MoJ consultation, launched in March, attempted to tackle the problems of lengthy delays, expensive legal action and claims being brought inappropriately. Three-quarters of claims in the civil justice system are settled after allocation but before trial, according to the MoJ.

Issue: 7478 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll