Report comment

@Anonymous; Commented on: 15 November 2017 10:32 GMT:

There is nothing wrong with running a Civ Lit case in the same way as a Mags case with or without the 1 day or 4 week trial window.

The only reason we have a difference in approach is that historically the High Court was seen as some kind of 'Rolls Royce' 'Forum'. The County Court Act was supposed to open up justice for many. It didn't really and was hijacked from the beginning by low level debt collection matters.

I really do not know why it has always been necessary to have one form for proceedings received at court when the Judge is sitting and one just sitting on the toilet. That smacks of childishness Public School dorm-antics.

One form one case, as with Crime.

Fair enough, is it not?

Sir Peter Middleton when he wrote his report at the same time as Woolf, envisaged a much more slimmed down proactive, system which could be used at base by all and heavy investment in IT (including databases to assist a [potential] litigant in what they could and could not 'plead' (to use old terminology Woolf' would not like), and procedure.

We simply cannot go on inventing Med Neg / PI / Car Hire Claims whilst cutting out all the other litigants who need the service of the Courts in a race to the bottom (and pockets of the Insurance Paymasters of the Law Society).

One Claim Form (as one Information), screened by the Clerk (as with Criminal case at the Mags). One set of directions. No disclosure and then Trial.

That must be the simplest solution.