Inconsistent judges plague Woolf reforms

By Sue AllenAfter two years of coming to terms with Lord Woolfs civil justice reforms, litigators have come out in favour of the changes...By Sue AllenAfter two years of coming to terms with Lord Woolfs civil justice reforms, litigators have come out in favour of the changes but concern is mounting over lack of consistency in judicial decision-making and increased costs, research published this week has shown.In a survey of 50 firms, conducted every six months by the Law Society, 80% of respondents said the reforms were an improvement and had led to an increase in the speed and number of cases settling as well as an improved spirit of co-operation.Some 82% of respondents said pre-action protocols introduced under the regime in April 1999 were being adhered to, but 68% said courts failed to sanction breaches of the protocol.Increased costs and a lack of judicial consistency in applying the rules were the greatest areas of concern identified by the survey.Nearly two-thirds of respondents (62%) said judges were not applying the civil procedure rules consistently.

A spokeswoman for the Lord Chancellors Department (LCD), said the main function of the designated civil judge was to secure consistency and eliminate local practice.

Mechanisms had been put in place through the Master of the Rolls and the Civil Justice Council to deal with such problems, and no formal complaints had yet been received, she added.

Summary assessments of costs were also said to be working poorly by 62% of those surveyed.

Although 55% said front-loading of costs incurring costs earlier in cases to comply with pre-action protocols and to deal with tight deadlines after cases are issued was not a problem.

Many said they found them hard to recover before costs judges.Fraser Whitehead, chairman of the Law Societys civil litigation committee and a partner at London firm Russell Jones & Walker, said the survey had shown that costs procedures were not working and that they were too complex.

He said there appeared to be a lack of understanding among judges that considerable work was now needed at the start of cases and that too much was being discounted at costs hearings.The LCD spokeswoman said a working party of judges, representatives of the professions, and the Legal Services Commission and Association of British Insurers was looking into increased costs.The use of single joint experts was less widespread than had been expected by some, with 36% of survey respondents saying their use of joint experts was very common, and 56% saying they were used only occasionally.Although 66% of respondents said case management conferences worked well, feedback showed that with greater court involvement in managing cases the strain of under-resourcing was starting to show in some courts.See Comment, page 14