Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

Keeping the English Legal System under review

Posts Tagged ‘reform of civil justice

Transforming our Justice System: Transformation – Courts and Tribunals 2022

leave a comment »

Despite the loss of the Prisons and Courts Bill 2017 at the General Election, held in June 2017, work on the Transforming our Justice System programme continues apace. (For those aspects of the reforms which need legislation, a replacement bill is expected shortly.)

Keeping up to date with the progress that has been made is hard, as most of the changes do not hit the headlines in the media. (About the only issue which has been subject to any public discussion has been criticism from the Bar about a pilot trialling the use of courts for longer periods during the day. The criticism focussed almost entirely on the inconvenience this would cause to barristers – no mention of the possibility that the public might prefer court hearings outside the traditional 10-4 Monday-Friday time frame.)

Specific developments can be noted by keeping an eye on Press Releases from the Ministry of Justice. A recent example is the announcement of the opening of the first two Courts and Tribunals Service Centres in Birmingham and Stoke on Trent

See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-courts-tribunals-service-centres-launched

A more rolling source of news can be found in the extremely interesting blog relating to the transformation programme – now called Transformation: Courts and Tribunals 2022. This provides news about the new services that are being developed for modernising the courts and tribunals system, both giving  accounts of what is currently on going and also what is planned.

The link to the blog is at https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/category/transformation-courts-and-tribunals-2022/

It is possible to sign up to an email notification service so that you are told when a new blog entry is published.

 

 

Advertisements

Next steps for ADR?

leave a comment »

In October 2017, the Civil Justice Council published an important consultation paper on the future of ADR.

The paper noted:

The stage has been reached where in various categories of dispute in England and Wales (notably family and employment) the parties are actually required to take steps directed solely to exploring settlement. Nobody in these systems is required to settle, but they are required to commit time and often money to exploring the possibility.
The Courts and rule makers in the non‐family civil justice system in England and Wales have been less forceful. The encouragement of ADR is currently achieved by:
(a) exhortations to try to  settle and to use ADR in Court forms and documents;
(b) links and signposts to sources of information about ADR
(c) tick‐box requirements that clients have, for example, been advised of the need to settle if possible and of the availability at ADR

(d) costs sanctions being imposed after judgment in the relatively rare cases in which one party can establish that his opponent has unreasonably refused or failed to mediate.
(e) the Courts’ acknowledgement that litigation lawyers are now under a professional obligation to advise their clients of the availability and advantages of ADR.
Almost all of these measures are well crafted and well thought out. But in our view the system as a whole is not working….
The Paper then goes on to ask whether the time has come for a different approach.
While noting that online dispute resolution may offer effective ways to resolve disputes, the Paper acknowledges that at present we simply do not know what that new system will look like.
Thus the basic proposition in the Paper is that:
the Court should promote the use of ADR more actively at and around the allocation and directions stage. We think that the threat of costs sanctions at the end of the day is helpful but that the court should be more interventionist at an earlier stage when the  decisions about ADR are actually being taken. We think there should be a presumption that in most cases if parties have not been able to settle a case by the directions stage they should be required to bring forward proposals for engaging in some form of ADR.
Some of us, a minority, would go further and introduce ADR either as a condition of access to the Court in the first place or later as a condition of progress beyond the Case Management Conference…
Overall we draw attention to the fundamental problem of the failure so far to make

ADR familiar to the public and culturally normal. Meeting this wider challenge will
ultimately be more important than any tuning of the rules of civil procedure.
I have long been a supporter of the use of ADR in civil proceedings. Indeed, many years ago I chaired a sub-committee of the Civil Justice Council that considered ways to promote the use of ADR. In welcoming the new paper I make the following suggestions:
1 To be successful, the judiciary must be supportive of the idea of promoting the use of ADR. If they are not supportive, then they will be less interventionist than the paper is suggesting they should be.
2 The judiciary need training in what ADR actually is and how it can be used as a dispute resolution tool. We ran an experimental workshop in which judges took part in role play exercises using ADR techniques. Having a ‘feel’ for the power of ADR in helping parties reach agreements should overcome judicial scepticism – if such still exists – about its value.
3 I think that consideration be given to rebranding Courts as Court and Dispute-Resolution Centre – which happens in some other countries. This sends the clear message that ADR is not something separate from the courts but integral to the Courts’ function.
4. It might be possible that a cadre of judiciary could train as ADR providers and undertake some mediations. (They could not of course hear cases that failed to settle.) But parties might be more willing to accept a process led by a judge rather than someone outside the Court structure.

The Consultation runs until mid-December 2017. The Interim Paper is at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/interim-report-future-role-of-adr-in-civil-justice-20171017.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Written by lwtmp

October 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm

Queen’s Speech 2017 and the Parliamentary session: 2017-2019

leave a comment »

The  draft legislation relating to the exit of the UK from the European Union is going to be extremely complicated – both in terms of the technical content of the proposed measures, and in terms of the political controversies that the legislation will attract, arising from the fact that Mrs May is leading a minority Government in the House of Commons and that there is a great deal of opposition to Brexit in the House of Lords.

The Government has therefore decided that, exceptionally, the current Parliament should last for two years rather than more normal one. Thus the next Queens Speech, following that  delivered in June 2017, will not be made until May 2019.

In addition to the raft of measures required to deal with different aspect of Brexit, the 2017 speech contained annoucements about two measures that will have specific impact on the English legal system.

  1. “Legislation will  be introduced to modernise the courts system and to help reduce motor insurance premiums.” This will not actually be wholly new. The measures relating to court reform and insurance premiums were originally contained in the Prisons and Courts Bill 2017, which fell when the 2017 General Election was called. The revised version of the new Bill has not yet been published but may be anticipated in Autumn 2017.
  2. “To support victims, my government will take forward measures to introduce an independent public advocate, who will act for bereaved families after a public disaster and support them at public inquests.” This is a reform that has long been called for. The details of this measure are not yet available.The Queen’s speech may be read at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2017

 

 

 

 

 

Transforming the English Legal System: Civil Justice

leave a comment »

The Consultation Paper Transforming our Justice System sets out proposals for reform of the civil justice system that build on work undertaken earlier in 2016 by the Civil Justice Council, JUSTICE and Lord Justice Briggs – all of which have been noted in this blog.
The principal features of what is now proposed are:

 

i. Introducing a new online process for resolving claims: In line with plans across all jurisdictions, we will move more cases away from physical court rooms. Building on Lord Justice Briggs’ proposals in his Civil Court Structures Review we will create a new process to resolve many disputes entirely online, using innovative technology and specialist case officers to progress routine cases through the system and reserving judicial time for the most complex cases. We will create a new, streamlined Rules Committee to design this new system and keep the processes simple. When hearings are required, they may be held over thetelephone or video conference, focusing court resources on the most complex and difficult cases. This will mean that cases should reach a quicker resolution.

ii. Encouraging parties to resolve disputes themselves where possible: We will
increase signposting to mediation and alternative dispute resolution services to
help people avoid court for minor disputes that would be better handled privately,
without needing the court to intervene.
iii. Extending the fixed recoverable costs regime: Fixed recoverable costs are legal
costs which can be recovered from the losing side by the successful party to a
claim, at a prescribed rate. (For civil claims, these are set out in the Civil
Procedure Rules). We will build on measures introduced in the last Parliament for
low value personal injury claims, to limit the level of legal costs recoverable.
These measures provide transparency and certainty for all parties and are
designed to ensure that the amount of legal work done is proportionate to the
value of the claim. We are keen to extend the fixed recoverable costs regime to
as many civil cases as possible. The senior judiciary will be developing proposals
on which we will then consult.
iv. Civil enforcement: We will give the [county court] powers to issue attachment of
earnings orders to the High Court to create a simpler, more consistent approach
to enforcement, and make sure more people can get the money they are owed.
We will also commence the fixed deductions scheme (fixed table) provisions in
the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 in the County Court and
introduce fixed tables in the High Court, providing transparency and certainty of
the rate of deductions from debtors’ earnings to pay back their creditors.
v. Replacing statutory declarations in county court proceedings with a witness
statement verified by a statement of truth: We will replace outdated and currently
inconsistent procedures, which are inconvenient for people to use and resource
intensive to administer, with a more modern digital approach but keeping strong
penalties where a statement of truth is found to be false.

See chapter 3 in https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/supporting_documents/consultationpaper.pdf

Review of the structure of the civil courts

leave a comment »

The review of the structure of the civil courts, undertaken at great speed and efficiency by Lord Justice Briggs, was published on 27 July 2016.

Although commissioned by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls rather than by Government Ministers, there are strong reasons to believe that its recommendations will be taken forward by Government. The one uncertainty is how far the new Lord Chancellor and Secretary of Justice, Lynne Truss MP, will focus on an initiative originally supported by her predecessor, Michael Gove MP.

The recommendation that has grabbed most public attention so far relates to the recommendation for The Online Court. 

This would be a new court, designed to be used by people with minimum assistance from lawyers, with its own set of user-friendly rules. It is anticipated that it will eventually become the compulsory forum for resolving cases within its jurisdiction. It should start by  dealing with straightforward money claims valued at up to £25,000.

The review makes recommendations about how to help people who need assistance with online systems.

It is also provided that complex and important cases, even of low monetary value, should be able to be transferred upwards to higher courts.

Briggs also recommends important changes to who should be undertaking the work of the courts. Judicial resources should be made more readily available by the creation of Case Officers.

These would be a senior body of court lawyers and other officials who can assist with certain functions currently carried out by judges, such as paperwork and uncontentious matters. They would be trained and  supervised by judges. Their decisions would be subject to reconsideration by judges on request by a party. They would operate independently of government when exercising their functions.

Thirdly Briggs deals with the thorny problem of the Enforcement of Judgments and Orders.

He recommends that there should be a single court as the default court for the enforcement of the judgments and orders of all the civil courts (including the new Online Court). This should be the County Court, but there would need to be a permeable membrane allowing appropriate enforcement issues to be transferred to the High Court, and special provision for the enforcement of arbitration awards, in accordance with current practice and procedure.

He wants to see all enforcement procedures being digitised, centralised and rationalised.

Fourth, Briggs is keen to promote Mediation/ADR.

This has been on the agenda for years. In this context he recommends the re-establishment of a court-based out of hours private mediation service in County Court hearing centres prepared to participate, along the lines of the service which existed prior to the establishment and then termination of the National Mediation Helpline. My view is that all county court hearing centres should be required to offer this; but Briggs clearly felt this was a step too far at this stage.

Future issues

Briggs also sets out a number of proposals for further restructuring of the civil courts. These include:

  1. a review of High Court divisions;
  2. a single portal for the issue of all civil proceedings, leading to the eventual abolition of District Registries;
  3. a review of whether procedural changes in the Court of Appeal should be applied to appeals to the High Court and to Circuit Judges in the County Court;
  4. the possible convergence of Employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal tribunal with the county court;
  5. he would like to see the Family Court being given a shared jurisdiction (with the Chancery Division and the County Court) for dealing with Inheritance Act disputes and disputes  about the co-ownership of homes.

Announcements about the Government’s response to these recommendations and how they fit into the current programme of reform of the court estate will be noted here in due course.

Detail about the Briggs review can be found at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/civil-courts-structure-review/civil-courts-structure-review-ccsr-final-report-published/civil-courts-structure-review-final-report-press-notice/

Protecting Intellectual property rights: the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

leave a comment »

The UK economy depends heavily on innovation – in products, design, brands. All these key economic activities are underpinned by intellectual property rights. It is essential that those who create, research and design new things and ideas are able to protect the intellectual property they have created.

There is a lot of law which is designed to do just that. But the effect of the law is undermined if those who want to assert their intellectual property rights against those who want to deny them their rights cannot do so effectively.

Of course the traditional forum for the assertion of such rights is the Court. But as is well known, going to court is an extremely expensive business. Individuals and small and medium businesses may just not be able to afford to litigate, however meritorious their case and however unmeritorious their opponents might be.

Some years ago, a first attempt to make some forms of IP litigation more affordable was put in place with the introduction in 1990 of the Patents County Court (PCC). It had a ‘special jurisdiction’ to hear proceedings related to patents and registered designs, and the ‘ordinary jurisdiction’of a County Court to hear tortious actions, such as copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, and passing off claims (though initially not all IP matters, such as certain trade mark and designs issues),

But it never worked particularly effectively and did not attract much business.In particular, the PCC was perceived as featuring a number of major ‘procedural shortcomings’ which affected its ability to hear low value claims:

  • The PCC ‘lacked any mechanisms for controlling what parties filed in a case or for keeping cases moving’
  • The PCC lacked the ability to place limits on the value of a case brought before it.
  • From 1999 onwards, the Civil Procedure Rules applied equally to the PCC and the High Court.

The cumulative effect of these three shortcomings was that litigation could be under­taken at the PCC and the High Court with the same procedures and at the same price. This was perceived as blurring the lines between the types of cases heard at the PCC and the High Court which did little to encourage SMEs to enforce their IP rights at the court.

Further as noted above, the PCC was split between ‘special’ and ’ordinary’ jurisdictions. Among other things, this split restricted to some extent the types of remedies that were available in certain cases, such as asset freezing orders and orders for search and seizure.
From 2010, a programme of reform has been put in place, designed to make it easier in particular for SMEs to access the court. The principal changes have been:
  • Procedural change,with  the introduction of active case management (ACM), early identification of the issues by the judge,and a limit on the time to be taken at trial;
  • Cap on recoverable costs: set at £50,000;
  • Cap of £500,000 damages recoverable in cases before the PCC;
  • The introduction of a small claims track to hear copyright, trade marks and passing off, databases, breach of confidence, and unregistered designs matters, but not cases concerning patents, registered designs and plant variety rights.

Finally, in October 2013, the Intellectual Property Enterprise court (IPEC) was created as a specialist court operating within the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales. In accordance with CPR part 63 and Practice Direction (PD) 63 the IPEC can hear cases concerning patents, designs (registered/unregistered, UK/Community), trade marks (UK/Community),passing off, copyright, database right, other rights conferred by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 and actions for breach of confidence. It took over the work of the Patents County Court, which was abolished.

A recent research report suggests that these changes – particular on the control of costs and the increase in case management – have been effective in encouraging more SMEs to bring cases to the IPEC and have also increased the willingness of parties to proceedings to negotiate settlements to their disputes.

The researchers found:

the cumulative effect of the IPEC reforms 2010-2013 has been highly significant – in addition to an increase in the numbers of filed cases at the IPEC, the creation of the streamlined IPEC MT and SCT for litigating disputes has led to an overall increase in the amount of IP disputes that occur more generally i.e. pre-filing. In other
words, now that IP holders have the ability to utilize the IPEC – a litigation forum that caps costs and damages, and makes use of ACM (and includes the SCT option) – IP holders are more confident about entering into disputes with potential infringers, where previously they would have not felt confident enough to do so.
The information in this blog item is derived from the evaluation report commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office, and written by Christian Helmers,Yassine Lefouili and Luke McDonagh. It was published on the England and Wales Judiciary website, and is downloadable at  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447710/Evaluation_of_the_Reforms_of_the_Intellectual_Property_Enterprise_Court_2010-2013.pdf
See also Angela Fox (2014): Intellectual Property Enterprise Court: Practice and Procedure, Sweet and Maxwell, London.