|
Janet Paraskeva discusses the proposed changes to the civil court structure and concludes that, while a unified court would bring many improvements, it is essential to maintain the quality of our judges and specialist courts
It has been recently reported that the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls are keen to reform the civil court structure in England and Wales to create a unified civil court (see [2004] Gazette, 1 July, 1). Such a move could certainly bring benefits that many would welcome – both for the public in terms of costs and efficiency, and for solicitors, in terms of professional development and streamlining of procedure.
The current civil justice structure of High Court, county courts and magistrates courts was created by the 1971 Courts Act. In 1996, Lord Woolf published his report on civil justice, Access to Justice. One of the main outcomes of this report was the creation of a unified set of civil court rules. The new rules, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, removed the procedural distinctions between the High Court and the county courts. The creation of a unified civil court would build on that process of simplification started by Lord Woolf. Such a change would be particularly beneficial for people who bring cases themselves without the assistance of lawyers, since one court, with a single set of rules and procedures would be much simpler to navigate for non-lawyers.
The Woolf reforms also extended the jurisdiction of the county courts and, as a result, the volume of civil work in the High Court has fallen dramatically. Since the reforms were introduced in 1999, the number of proceedings brought in the Queen’s Bench Division has fallen by 84%. However, the cost of operating the High Court has not fallen over that period – in 2001-2002 it operated at a loss of £54 million.
It is currently government policy to recover the full cost of the civil court system from members of the public using the courts. In my view this policy is wrong in any event, but the damaging impact on litigants is compounded when these additional losses have to be borne by the public. It is not a sustainable situation. The unification of the High Court and county courts would ensure that the courts’ resources were used more cost effectively.
Removing the duplication of procedures should also reduce errors and eliminate the need for training in the procedures of two systems for solicitors and barristers. There would also be savings from having one set of court forms rather than two and from having a single IT system. The advantage of this particular efficiency was brought home to us at the Law Society recently when the Association of District Judges gave us a demonstration of the new judicial templates that are to be launched in the Autumn. This excellent initiative is an IT package containing a comprehensive range of court order templates, which takes solicitors through the range of required options in civil cases and produces a draft order for approval by the judge, in wording that has been previously approved by the judiciary. We were dismayed to learn that this will not apply to the High Court in London but only to the county courts and High Court district registries, because different wording is used in orders in the High Court.
Aside from operational efficiencies, it is also likely that the proposed changes would bring improved career opportunities for solicitors. In a unified civil court solicitors would probably have extended rights of audience and this could lead to greater opportunities in the judiciary for solicitors.
Unification would cut costs, reduce delay and enable better resourcing of the civil justice system, helping to ensure that it is accessible to the public, cost effective and efficient.
However, I issue a word of caution. Our civil justice system attracts litigants from all over the world and the UK earns £1 billion a year from international litigation. They are attracted by the quality of our judges and the specialist courts within the High Court: the Patents Court, the Admiralty Court, the Commercial Court, the Mercantile Courts, the Technology and Construction Courts and the Administrative Courts. Any plans to create a single unified civil court must preserve this quality. To undermine this would challenge our position as an international legal centre and, by default, as an international commercial centre.
On the other hand, the creation of a unified civil court could provide opportunities to enhance the reputation of our specialist judges and to ensure that cases are tried by the appropriate class of judge. A single court could allow allocation of work to judges on the basis of their specialism rather than a forum. It would, nonetheless, be important to retain a two-tiered judiciary – it is difficult to see how we could maintain the current calibre of our judges without retaining a High Court bench.
The full detail of what Lord Woolf and Lord Phillips envisage has not yet been fleshed out. Many questions are unanswered, and we will be interested to see the detail of their thoughts on the possible way ahead. However, there is no doubt that this is an idea with real potential and the Law Society is keen that it should be fully explored.
Janet Paraskeva is the Law Society chief executive
No comments yet