Technological advances mean it is time to revive the idea of a single 'docket' judge to manage contested civil cases, says Michael Tennant


The most unwelcome reply when a judge asks a question of an advocate must be: 'I'm sorry, sir, it's not my case.' Or to put it another way: 'The only reason I am here is to prevent the case from being struck out' or perhaps 'Sorry, but you'll have to do my job as well as your own'.



Of course, lawyers must have holidays and an overworked practitioner will sometimes feel obliged to send a representative to court on an interlocutory application. But there is tension between the need to ensure that the time of a senior solicitor is used efficiently, and the requirement that all those who handle the case should be familiar with it. In particular, when dealing with an application in court, a better outcome for the client is likely if the matter handled by someone familiar with the case.



Things are bad enough when different case handlers in solicitors' offices deal with cases at different times, often with little or no knowledge of what others have done or the reasons for it. Problems are compounded when different judges deal successively with the case management, and the more complex the litigation, the more unfortunate may be the effect.



If a case is managed by several judges in succession, some inevitably being part-timers, the danger is that they will not all have the time or resources to get to grips with the essential issues. Worse still, each may take a different, albeit individually valid, view of the litigation. Robust case management, the cornerstone of the civil justice reforms in 1998, becomes difficult or impossible. The consequence of several judges dealing with a case is potentially disastrous in the family jurisdiction. In cases involving intractable child contact disputes, appeal judges have more than once identified the involvement of too many judges as a major cause of the failure to find a solution.



When Lord Woolf was consulting on his reforms, there was discussion about bringing in 'docketing' - the allocation of a contested civil case to a particular judge at the start of that case. The idea was not followed through, partly because of the difficulty as it was perceived in reconciling the approach with judges' itineraries. It would have involved the spectacle of files following judges in the wake of their itineraries.



With the advent of the electronic case file, this perceived difficulty should disappear, but docketing is not immediately in prospect. Nevertheless, much progress could and surely should be made in the interests of the efficient administration of justice. Most of the civil litigation is now handled by district judges, whose itineraries usually and increasingly do not involve them in travelling to different courts. Further, much civil work is an increasingly specialised jurisdiction. This renders continuity even more important.



Thus it is time surely for a rethink about docketing, given the impact it could have on case management. It would promote a consistent, more robust approach to case management that would facilitate earlier settlement of cases, saving judicial time. Time would also be saved for the parties to the litigation with a consequent saving in costs which most would agree are far too high in most cases.



It is a matter for debate as to how all this might be achieved, especially because much judicial work is done by part-time judiciary. In theory, matters might be improved at local level by judges who are dealing with case management reserving all future directions to themselves. This would involve a change of culture but that might well have to be promoted by enshrinement in a practice direction or perhaps in the Civil Procedure Rules themselves.



District Judge Michael Tennant is the new president of the Association of District Judges. He sits at Southampton and Newport, Isle of Wight County Courts, and is also a county court and Crown Court recorder