Report comment

Anecdotally, I hear that the County Court judiciary are swamped.

The problem starts with a flood of legislation, often backed by secondary legislation; either or both of which are often complicated or impenetrable, or both. That's for starters.

Then the common law, ameliorated by equity, is often not straight forward.

Enter the litigants.

Obviously the same rules of evidence and procedure must apply to all Iitigants. The problem is how much discretion (aka known as power) is to be given to the judge at whatever level in applying the law (the common law and esp equity gave a pretty wide scope to the judge) and the rules (the old RSC and CCR similarly gave a pretty scope).

This meant that the system at its highest levels had to trust the lower judiciary to do the business properly. Over the last couple of decades or so that trust evaporated. So there was a perceived need for rules which removed as much wriggle room and which covered as many eventualities as possible. Certainty! Sadly, the answer has spawned more problems than it has solved as the satellite litigation it caused bit.

Alas a lot of clever, but in my submission not very bright, people have developed an unworkable system. The Rules Committees have not helped by a continuing need to tinker (see satellite litigation above) or to create rules to cover everything.

The old CCR did everything the average litigant needed.