The Civil Procedure Rules may have been well intended, but Peter Coyle says overworked judges and court staff mean little has changed

Our civil justice system has experienced two major developments in the last decade. First, we had the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), aimed at streamlining the litigation process within the High Court and the county court, and providing better access to justice. Secondly, we have seen the abolition of legal aid in certain areas to ease the pressure on the public purse, and to transfer litigation risk in civil claims to the litigating parties and/or to their legal advisers.


Certainly, the introduction of the CPR appeared to be a positive move at the time. However, ten years on, what are the harsh realities arising from these changes? Have the rules made the litigation process easier, quicker and more cost effective?


While creating one set of procedural rules for use in both the High Court and county court has been helpful, giving new tags to the same 'goods' - for example, claimant instead of plaintiff, disclosure instead of discovery - has had a completely neutral effect. Giving things more user-friendly names only creates a benefit if the rules as a whole make it easier for 'users' to litigate their own cases. But for all cases outside the small-claims track, the litigation process is still a complete minefield for most members of the public.


Granting judges tangible control over the management of cases was another great idea - but one that has been defeated by the lack of resources given to the Courts Service, particularly the county courts. For example, in my local county court, going before the same district judge twice in succession on the same case occurs only through luck rather than by design. Without the necessary working knowledge of cases 'allocated' to him for 'proactive' case management, the overworked district judge is understandably reluctant to make bold case management decisions.


When do district judges, of their own volition, strike out a statement of case so poorly drafted that its only consequence will be to waste court resources, time and money? Never, in my experience. Even when a formal application is made to my local court in which a district judge is requested to use this useful case management tool without a court hearing, the application is inevitably returned by the court clerk listed for a hearing.


People take short cuts when they are under pressure. I suspect this is the reason why my local county court routinely lists everything for a formal hearing. It is a process that is quick and painless for the court clerk, as he does not need to trouble the district judge who has case files piled ten deep on the desk.


While the practical ease of short cuts is clearly understood, it is the paying public that is being short-changed. Short cuts in a civil justice system created to give people better and more cost effective access to justice should be unacceptable, but accepting them we are - in preference to fighting or lobbying for more court resources.


In fairness, the CPR have speeded the process of getting to trial. But exactly the same work is being done between commencement and trial. Accordingly, while the process has undoubtedly been quickened, it has sadly not reduced the cost of the overall process.


What began as a well-intentioned plan to streamline aspects of our legal system and to improve access to the law has, perversely, had precisely the opposite effect. The very people these changes were designed to help are still paying far too much to get their grievances determined by the court. Lots of cases with merit are falling by the wayside as a result.


Peter Coyle is the senior partner at Buckinghamshire-based law firm Coyle White Devine