header-logo header-logo

Taking the wrong direction?

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll