While a recent letter on the subject gives, no doubt intentionally, a gross caricature of the failings of the county court system, it rightly identifies matters of serious concern to all those with a stake in civil justice (see [2004] 22 April, Gazette, 14).

Files do get mislaid, follow-up can be difficult, action is sometimes delayed.

When things go wrong they loom larger in the mind than the great majority of things that go right.

But there are endemic weaknesses in managing a practically unlimited jurisdiction in the context of an infrastructure devised for an earlier age where any work of substance was dealt with by the High Court.

At the heart of the problem is the inability of the Court Service to offer rates of pay that will secure the retention of experienced, competent staff in sufficient numbers, particularly in inner cities.

Central London Civil Justice Centre loses about a third of its 90 staff every year - no major organisation can expect to maintain its desired level of service in these circumstances.

This is not the fault of the Court Service.

Government policy is to attempt full recovery of the cost of the civil justice system, including the judges' salaries, out of court fees.

In an era of declining litigation and consequent loss of income, the future looks worse, rather than better, under this policy.

Court service managers, at all levels, work tremendously hard to cope within these limitations.

Improved IT will go some way to help.

But only recognition by the government that in a civilised society the community as a whole has an interest in providing a system for the resolution of disputes, and not just the immediate users of the system, will lead to parity of efficiency with the private sector.

Judge Paul Collins, Central London Civil Justice Centre