Report comment

The one success of the Woolf reforms of 1999 was that the system did become a lot more efficient- the fast track is a big success. If there was delay, there was usually a good reason, and you could apply for a remedy if you were dissatisfied with your opponents reaction.
Lowndes derailed Woolf, creating the costs crisis that precipitated Jackson. To that extent, I support Jackson- how it pans on the costs of litigation we await to see.
Mitchell was an unwelcome add on. I understand what it was hoped to achieve, but it has brought home to me, how little Dyson, Jackson et al understand legal process outside of their own limited domain and experience. The only certain thing has been the swift and certain collapse of the judicial system that personally has shocked me as a practitioner.
Noises from Dyson and Jackson so far have been defiant- they are wedded to a dogma that makes me fear that they will refuse to admit that they got this badly wrong. I hope not, because I feel they can retract without detracting from the Jackson reforms.
The law is decided by public school boys brought up on notions of ' fair play' and 'cricket' and that is one of the more valuable notions of that strata of society. I hope they rediscover that essential 'English' decency...