Report comment

There has always been inconsistency between court decisions, and differing approaches taken by different judges/ courts. The suspected bias of certain courts for certain classes of party is well known. These were always factored into the consideration of the case and advice to clients
Howeve Jackson overtly dispensed with the concept of justice. The new world (as set out in the new overriding objective) was all about need for 'efficiency', the sanctity of court rules and directions. No mention of fairness or justice at all. Having decided to embrace the new world in Mitchell, the courts started to reap what Jackson had sown. Instead of efficiency it created a whole new wave of satellite litigation and petty point taking, because that was what Jackson encouraged. He (and Dyson ) aren't stupid. They must have foreseen it. So the conclusion is the it was either the result they wanted, or they were reckless as to the consequences.
By clogging up the court system at a time when court staff and court funding was cut, and their morale had probably never been lower, it rendered the whole system unfit for purpose.
And so now we see the rowing back from Mitchell but the Jackson reforms and the 'efficient overriding objective' are still enshrined. The judges that oversaw the whole mess are still influential and unapologetic. No minister and no flunky at the MOJ has been held out for the failure of this brave new world,
You're probably better off tossing a coin than trusting your case to the modern 'efficient' court system