Report comment

@Mick C15 March 2016 06:01 pm

"....Woolf's reforms were about discouraging litigation, not about access to justice at all. .."

I like your comments Mick, I think they are very perceptive. A Practitioner lecturing at Bristol University took this view as well.

".....He believed that by having cases "hearing ready" before issuing, it would discourage"chancer" cases. ..."

Ah yes, front loading without consulting the users.

"....What he did not realise is that many cases settled before or after issue, but before being "hearing ready' because the issues had been crystallised, and competent solicitors would properly advise as to settlement, thus saving court time, and costs all round. ..."

Exact;y what that lecturer thought. He said often very long ago (pre 1984), statements were exchanged right at the last moment and then the case settled, (and though he didn't mention what happened to the Court slot, and whether leaving it to the last moment screwed up the organisation of the Courts, I suspect users got used to it and it did not, there being plenty of floaters, case ready).

"...His intervention forced costs up, and therefore less access to justice, because he did not understand the practicalities of litigation. ..."

He spoke to Commercial City boys. they (until the Insurers/Bankers take over their business (and its being eyed up), who will be picking up the pieces of the verisimilitude of "access " to the Courts when the Sole and Small Practices have been erased by the Law Society and SRA.