Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

It sounds as if, based on the circumstances described, Mr Justice Coulson's decision was a reasonable one.


BUT the courts themselves have to be efficient as well. Since 2013, we have a somewhat bizarre system in which parties can face ferocious sanctions even the ultimate sanction for being a day or two late, and yet court offices can sit on files for months - what is the point of strict deadlines for parties / practitioners if courts then sit on files? Am sure I'm not the only one who has had cases where both sides have raced to file Directions Questionnaires on pain of death, and then we've finally heard from the court, 3 or more months later, that they are thinking about directions. Or despite evidence having been filed some months in advance of a hearing, when it comes to the hearing, the judge clearly hasn't read it - this seems to be a particular problem in the Chancery Division in London, no doubt down to the huge workload upon judges there.


And court fees are higher than ever: orders of magnitude higher than they were in the 1990s, an era when the service was generally much better than now, and court offices staffed with plenty of people who knew what they were doing.


It is only fair to say that some staff members within the Court Service now (London included) are very efficient; ditto some courts: I don't have many cases there, but as regards efficiency, couldn't fault the court offices at Newcastle Upon Tyne, or Leeds County Court. But increasingly, these efficient courts seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Your details

Cancel