Were the Woolf Reforms successful in sol PDF

Preview

Summary

Common Law ...

Description

University of London Common Law Reasoning and Institutions Essay Title: _____2________ Student Number: ____120414288________

Although settlement, rather than litigation, poses a number of problems for a civil justice system these matters have been largely resolved by Lord Woolf’s reforms. The Law commission found that United Kingdom’s civil system was seen as unworkable by laymen and lawyers. This was so because it did not work as cheaply, quickly or as well as it could. It was also considered that the adversarial system of proceedings in the United Kingdom’s civil justice system should be examined to help solve these problems and the civil justice system needed a major radical change.

The roles and objectives of the civil justice system of the United Kingdom are; (1)It makes rules regarding the legislation: how to interpret it e.g.by precedent, (2)It determines the kind of cases admissible in the courts and (3)It resolves the cases/disputes before it. (Civil law is created, explained and applied in the civil justice system.) The main question is regarding the actual fulfillment of the beforementioned roles. Four properties are important in a civil justice system for it to overcome the main issues of high costs and massive time delays. So the main properties a well functioning justice system requires are; 1.

An inherent feeling of justice being served,

2.

Accessibility for all members of the society,

3. Efficiency in time effort and cost, 4. Effectiveness of the justice system. As United Kingdom’s civil justice system failed to fulfill these objectives and lacked the basic properties previously discussed there was rising unhappiness with its workings.

Neil Andrews in 1994 identified the problems the civil justice system of the United Kingdom was suffering from and the reasons for these problems. He believed that the law was remote and cases were entirely in the hands of the lawyers making it difficult for claimants to actually control the direction of the court proceedings. The courts were uninvolved and uninterested in the process of attaining justice and the procedure was very technical and extremely slow and hence became very

costly. According to Neil Andrews most of these problems were a result of the highly adversarial nature of the civil justice system and to battle these issues the courts had to foster a more open and friendly atmosphere in the courts between the opposing parties.

According to Professor Hazel Genn what is perhaps important in our methods to try to understand the civil justice system is the fact that unlike the criminal justice system the litigants, or at least one side of them, actually come voluntarily. They are not made by the state to appear before the court as in the criminal justice system. Thus this means that at least one of the parties to a civil claim is willing and eager to reach to a settlement or a judgement than the other. It is in their interest to reach a decision in the quickest possible way.

The Main Problems: There were two sets of rules concerning civil procedures in the courts : in the High court and Court Of Appeal the Rules of the Supreme Courts were used, in the County courts the County Court Rules were used. (Actions in the High Court were started through the writ system and in the County Court by a summons.) Both courts had different specialized procedures which were unique for either court. More cases were adjudicated in the High Court then the High Court was equipped to handle. Cases which were less complex were taken upto the High Court and so there were further delays and a rise in the costs of bringing a civil claim. This made the court system too difficult and complex to handle for the ordinary claimants without any previous experience in legal matters.

Lord Woolf’s Interim Report: According to Lord Woolf’s interim report, which was a precursor to the Woolf Reforms, the principles of a civil justice system were: (1) It should be just in it’s results, (2) It should be fair and should be accepted as being fair,(3) Both the costs and procedures should be equal to the complexity or simplicity of the case,(4) It should be speedy, certain and effective and (5) The seekers of justice should be able to understand the procedure. The interim report identified the main problems in civil litigation were as cost, delay and complexity.

Lord Woolf believed these problems could be remedied by introducing a change in the manner of litigation. The environment in the civil courts of the UK is adversarial in nature and being so, it breeds ill will between both opposing parties because of which both parties employ tactics which add to the grievances of

either side (e.g irrelevant technical issues). So most of the delays and increasing in costs were as a result of premeditated actions on either or both parties.

The proceedings in the court were totally in the hands of the lawyers and so the system was more probable towards delays, as it was in the lawyer’s interests to delay the proceedings for higher legal fees.

The Woolf Reforms: Lord Woolf suggested that there should be active case management by the courts. The use of alternative methods of acquiring justice, through meditation etc, was to be encouraged and the exchange of witness statements between both parties were also to be preferred. His suggestions were later made a part of the civil system under the New Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

The New Civil Procedure Rules 1999 In the Civil Procedure Rules 1999 there are fixed cost regimes for each case type. Other than this the judges are also now required by law to introduce fixed times for all types of legal procedures. In the event of litigants not following the timetables set by the judges, sanctions for breach are to be imposed on the litigants. A new IT system is also introduced in these rules so that judges can track cases and their progress easily. In addition the rules also allow for evidence to be submitted using telephones or internet communication meaning that actual witnesses need not be physically present in the courts for cross examination. The courts will now not allow either side to delay the procedure by introducing a witness who has to travel for hundreds of miles to be actually present in court. They can now do so through e-communication. Perhaps one of the most user-friendly reform in the civil justice system culture is that of using plain, ordinary english rather than Latin. This helps litigants understand the procedures and thereby allowing them to chose how to proceed with their claim without the lengthy explanations of a lawyer

There is now a requirement for all prospective litigants to follow the Pre Action Protocols. These protocols allow for both parties to apply for summary litigation to enable them to assess the merits of their case before litigation actually begins so that they can decide if they want to pursue the case or not. Parties are as a result now legally required to disclose documents which they would use in their respective cases to the court to opposing counsel to encourage openness between both parties.

Litigants are encouraged to focus their attention on trying to resolve disputes without resorting to litigation. They are assisted in this by being provided with the appropriate information required to enter into a suitable settlement and alternatively to make an appropriate offer to the opposing side.

In the absence of possible pre-action settlements speedy and efficient proceedings are now ensured. The small claims jurisdiction is extended up to £3,000 and a new fast track is established for simple cases not exceeding £10,000 in value. In the multi-track cases are considered in two instances; firstly at the case management conference in the beginning of the proceedings, and secondly at the pre-trial review. This again provides the parties a chance to further consider settlement options available to them. The procedural judge now: helps assign cases to their relevant management tracks, directs case management conferences and monitors the progress of the case. This results in a more efficient civil justice system which is timely and affordable. It is the judge who decides which materials should be disclosed to either side, which witnesses are to be called by both parties (more often than not there are common witnesses) and the judge also prepares the cases of each side for trial. So now judges are more involved in the civil system are not merely placed as “referees” to control the proceedings when they get out of control.

The civil justice system deals with complex issues in the courts only. For simpler claims early settlement between the parties and an increased environment of cooperation have been encouraged leading to lesser cases which to backlog the civil courts.

The Results: The Department of Constitutional Affairs’ numbers,published in a 2002 report indicate that there has been a drop in the claims issued in courts and that pre-action protocols actually promote settlement. There is now a new attitude towards early settlement making the overall trial numbers on both fast and multi-track fewer. The time between the initialisation of a case and it’s hearing is less . However the use of mediation has decreased and the time between initialising a claim in the small claims track and the actual trial of the said claim has increased leading to more delays. According to the Civil Justice Council there has been no change in the costs of civil litigation and instead there is front loading of the costs of the cases and the cases themselves.

So why exactly has ADR been so unpopular? Because of the compulsion on the parties to try ADR as a result of sanctions people are now less willing to try ADR on their own. There is a lack of demand for mediation, especially in the cases regarding divorce where the claim is a result of a breakdown in a relationship. The cost of mediation is also too high for ordinary claimants. In order to resolve the issues regarding the reluctance of the claimants in using Alternative Dispute Resolution further reforms are required in the civil justice system. However the Woolf reforms have proven to be a welcome change in the manner in which civil proceedings are handled. Though more work is required on overcoming the difficulties faced by possible claimants the reforms by Lord Woolf have been largely successful.

Biblography ●

Law commission seminar report (1985) (Westlaw).

●

Adam Gearey and Wayne Morrison, ‘The civil process’, (2012).

●

Elliot and Quinn, ‘ The civil Justice System’.

●

Lord Woolf (1995) , ‘Interim report’, The UK National Archives.

●

Kate Malleson and Nicola Padfield, ‘The civil justice process’, The Legal System.

●

Kate Malleson and Nicola Padfield, ‘The Woolf Reforms to civil justice’, The Legal System.

●

Professor Hazel Genn, ‘Solving Civil Justice Problems: what might be best?’.

●

Lord Woolf (1996), ‘Final report on access to justice’, The UK National Archives.

●

CLRI VLE Audio presentation: Civil Process

https://lawsmedia.londoninternational.ac.uk/media/LLB/lectures/course_materials/CLRI_CLRI11.php...