Clarke raises small claims limit in county court
The limit on small claims in the county court is to be doubled to £10,000 as part of government measures to speed up civil litigation. Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke today set out plans to divert up to 80,000 more cases to a small claims mediation process that can be carried out over the telephone.
The limit on small claims may also be raised further to £15,000 subject to evaluation. A single county court system will be introduced and all claims will be handled electronically at centralised business centres, then allocated across neighbouring courts according to demand.
The Ministry of Justice also wants to free up the High Court to deal only with complex cases.
The level below which non-personal injury claims cannot be heard in the High Court will be raised from £25,000 to £100,000. Equity cases will only be taken to the High Court where the property is valued at £350,000 or more, up from the current level of £30,000.
The MoJ has also confirmed the extension of the web-based portal scheme, which will now apply to employer and public liability personal injury cases and road traffic accident cases worth up to £25,000.
Clarke said: ‘Without effective civil justice, businesses couldn’t trade, individuals couldn’t enforce their rights, and government couldn’t fulfil its duties.
‘But individuals and businesses tell me that the civil justice system at the moment can sometimes be intimidating and that they don’t know if using the system will be worth the time, expense and hassle of going to court.
‘I want to make the system as easy and transparent as possible. I want people to be able to resolve their disputes cheaply and simply through the courts’ very successful mediation service, and I want judges freed up to make quick and effective judgments based on the facts of a case, without unnecessary legal complication.
‘These changes will produce a service that helps people to resolve their disputes effectively and in the simplest and quickest way possible so they can get on with their lives and businesses.’
Iain Stark, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said: 'The government’s plan to increase the financial limit of the RTA PI scheme to £25,000 may mean the extension will incorporate psychological injuries to be considered at this level. The portal scheme was designed for low value RTA claims.
'There appears to be nothing in the government’s response about the potential increased costs relating to this. It is effectively asking solicitors to undertake the same work at £25,000 as they would have for £10,000 - quite simply, it can’t be done by true professionals.'
The reforms are in response to the government’s consultation on solving disputes in the county courts, which had originally been due out in October.
Comments
What absolute tosh from
What absolute tosh from Clarke and his minions in the MOJ.
To be honest, I do not know why they even keep the pretence up. Everybody knows that unless you are a Russian Billionaire, a Conservative Party Donor, your views do not count.
If you are unfortunate enough, say, to have built a roof for somebody, paid £6,000 in materials, and used a subcontractor to put scaffold up costing £1,000, then when you don't get paid your £9,000 bill, it is because you have been unreasonable, isn't it? After all, if you were reasonable, you would have resolved it at mediation wouldn't you?
A court system that exists to resolve disputes is their because people dispute things. A fundamental tenet of the rule of law is that citizens should have full recourse to law if their rights are infringed.
"Diverting 80,000 cases" into a service run by what few court staff are left, with no legal qualification, no knowledge or expertise of anything, whose role is basically to pressurise unrepresented litigants into settling, is in essence the state saying "we won't help enforce the rule of law, because we couldn't give three flying ..... about you and your problem"
In fact what the LSG have
In fact what the LSG have missed is this little "gem" on the MOJ Press Release:-
"Some administrative form work will move from judges to administrators, leaving judges to concentrate on making good decisions rather than managing cases."
That's good news, the court staff now responsible for judicial case management!
the pattern of changes to the
the pattern of changes to the judicial system reeks of prohibiting access to justice to those that would appear to need it most, and for those that can access it, it will no longer be tended to by a legally qualified individual so even the justice itself is being downgraded.
I wonder what they'll think of next...
LOL
LOL
Mediating
I always thought that parties went to Court when they could not settle with their opponents. I thought the Judge was the Arbitrator in that case. Judges are now 'too posh to push' and passing their job onto unqualified Court staff and mediators.
I agree that all they do is pressure an agreement under threat of huge costs if the case is not settled and a Judge is asked to do some judging.
Cases can be complex out of proportion to their value.....and £10K is a LOT of money to most people.
Mediation Schmediation
The standard reactionary politician`s catch-all excuse for reform is that it removes layers of bureaucracy. Ooh! No-one can be against that now can they ? Mr. Clarke at the very least hints at this through a "cheap and simple" mediation service. But, how exactly does interposing a member of court staff heavily nudging parties to try to settle before proceedings, fit in with the above when they have gone to court precisely because they cannot settle ? It sounds like an additional layer of bureaucracy to me, not least to cope with their puzzlement at a Court not doing what it says on the tin.
I used to think the last lot were expert at twisting the language to extract a grain of "feelgood factor" from the slough of cuts, failure and despair until it jarrs the mind`s interpretive faculties in protest, but this lot put them in the shade. It is a cliche to talk of "NewSpeak", but cliches often become cliches for a good reason.
Absolute Tosh by Domcoop
"Diverting 80,000 cases" into a service run by what few court staff are left, with no legal qualification, no knowledge or expertise of anything, whose role is basically to pressurise unrepresented litigants into settling, is in essence the state saying "we won't help enforce the rule of law, because we couldn't give three flying ..... about you and your problem"
Domcoop - personally I think the proposals are quite reasonable. The more cases that are resolved through discussion and mediation the better. I believe that most cases we see in the courts could be avoided if a little common sense prevailed.
By the way, in the above you seem to express some sympathy for unrepresented litigants. When I expressed the same concern for unrepresented litigants wrongly pursued on mass by law firms (and those law firm's pressurising those people into settling) you did not have much sympathy to offer at all.
In fact you supported those law firms. I wonder why.
Coop
In fairness to Dom Coop, I think he would agree that, ideally, as many cases as possible should be resolved consensually. His point (as I understand it) is that litigants are entitled to have their cases (and their mediations conducted) by judges, not by unqualified court staff.
Most cases never get anywhere near a trial, because they settle or are discontinued or struck out. However, the pressure which is being exerted on litigants to settle through mediation is (in my view) becoming too strong. Mediation is presented as some kind of panacea, but it is not. Like many other practitioners, I used to settle cases through the simple expedients or writing a few letters, making offers and payments into court and picking up the phone to the other side. The focus on mediation has meant that practitioners are losing basic negotiation skills and do not properly assess the merits of the client's case (leaving that to the mediator, who will then refuse to do it). Moreover, the "holy grail" of mediation is increasingly meaning that many parties do not want to make any offers at all until they get to mediation - a mediation which may, in many cases, costs thousands of pounds to arrange and attend.
In my view, a very high proportion of cases which settle at mediation could be settled without any need for the time and costs of a mediation, if solicitors (re)learnt how to negotiate with each other. Mediation should be the last resort (or the penultimate resort, the last resort being a trial), but it is rapidly turning into an expensive first resort. A "telephone mediation" might well be cheaper, but is likely to lack all those characteristics of a mediation (face-to-face contact, airless rooms, dry sandwiches, boredom for hours on end, the impending start of Coronation Street or a televised football match) which combine to produce a settlement shortly after 7 pm.
A telephone mediation
"Hiya, it's Kathy from Salford County Court. Have ya thought about settling ye case?"
Why should I, he owes me ten grand!
"Cos judge'll not like it y'know. new guidelines we work under say if you don't settle you have to pay costs to the other side. I've spoke to Mr Smith this morning and he says he's got two thousand to give you now, otherwise he'll put in a counterclaim for twenty thousand. And he says even if you win, you'll only get one pound a month off him."
Oh, I see. Could he really do that? Would any counterclaim have merit? If he paid only £1 per month, could I enforce it?
"HEY! You can't ask me these questions! I told you, I can't give yeh legal advice!"
What should I do?
"Let me read off this sheet we got given. wait a sec while a find it. 'litigents who settle at mediation are statistically more likely to have long term feelings of satisfaction and constructive engagement in dispute process outcomes'. So basically what we recommend is you take any offer you get."
Ok
"Are you satisfied with process of this mediation?"
I wouldn't know what to compare it with!
"Well that's classed as a 'yes' so I'll put that down. Ministry of Justice survey you see. We got 103% satisfaction rates last year but are area office says it in't enough like. Bye!"
But wait a min... oh you've gone. Bye.