Bench: lower courts should not tackle claims above £500,000

The City of London Law Society has warned the government against requiring more civil cases to be heard below the High Court as a way of limiting the size of the bench.


In its response to a Department for Constitutional Affairs' (DCA) consultation paper on the allocation of judicial resources, the society's litigation committee said: 'The starting point should be a review of what reasonably demands a High Court judge. Sufficient High Court judges should be appointed to undertake that work.'


The committee disputed the DCA's claim that an increase in the number of judges in the High Court from the current complement of 108 members could be detrimental to its quality, arguing that it was confident there would be sufficient excellent candidates to fill any vacancies.


The society also described the over-use of deputy judges in the High Court as 'unsatisfactory'. 'Parties whose cases are heard by deputies invariably feel that they are receiving second-class treatment, and the precedent value of any judgment is more limited,' it said.


The committee added that the DCA should consider the demands placed on the High Court by the volume of criminal cases it hears.


It also called for 'clear and straightforward' rules to determine which cases are heard in the High Court and which in the county court. The committee proposed that for monetary claims, those worth more than £500,000 should be determined by a High Court judge rather than the £5 million level proposed by the DCA. 'Claims above £500,000 are likely to be major matters that, if not heard by a senior judge, will lead to appeals,' it suggested.


Tony Marks, chairman of the committee and a partner at City firm CMS Cameron McKenna, said: 'Fundamentally, they should define the work that should be done by the High Court judge. The concern that we have is that more work is forced down to a lower level.'