Report comment

The story is a sorry one for the unfortunate participants, and illustrates a broader problem, much commented on in these pages: that the Government has been trying for some years to square the circle of helping people enforce rights etc through the courts, without providing any means to ensure this (following the virtual abolition of civil legal aid).

Various alternatives have been tried and found wanting; various misinformation exercises have been conducted to make some of the alternatives appear more palatable (labelling lawyers as 'fat cats', and the whiplash business spring to mind).

There may be others, but I can only think of three things the Government hasn't tried. First, mandatory legal expenses insurance (probably unworkable); secondly simplifying the court rules and system to make it more possible for litigants in person to manage on their own (also probably unworkable, as it would require more court staff and a sea change in thinking by the likes of Sir Rupert); thirdly, looking again at legal aid ...

I'd be interested to hear if others consider there are further alternatives to facilitate access to justice. In that connection, I would mention briefly that substituting arbitration for litigation is (in my professional experience) not necessarily cheaper and easier, although having only the Arbitration Act and a conscientious arbitrator does avoid most of the procedural traps in the CPR. What about moving some cases from adversarial to inquisitorial justice? (Cost is probably the answer to that one.)