Report comment

Those who design the Civil Procedure Rules strongly believe that such 'Snakes and Ladders' provisions, strictly enforced, are the best way to keep the Courts running smoothly and thereby save on (limited) public funds, which - they will always say, truthfully - are otherwise diverted from innocent litigants in other matters.

This attitude however is based on the Courts having joined forces with the Ministry of Justice to minimise public spending on civil justice, which is of course a politically driven imperative - and one that many of us in our profession (though we are a bit biased) has a certain, shall we say, moral bankruptcy.

HM judges are therefore in essence acting as costs cutters for H M Treasury because that is the value judgment they are collectively willing and agree-able to pass down, under the leadership of the Lord Chief Justice (who issues an annual CEO-style report on his department's spending and performance). Any judge who deviates from the strict line is liable to an appeal and the implied censure that carries - as the Court of Appeal has set the precedents in Mitchell, Denton, etc line of cases, which leave almost no scope for forgiving such breaches. They talk in terms of the CPR having been 'strengthened', thereby affording them and their internal budgets greater respect than ever before.

Under this corporate mind-set, civil justice has greatly diminished intrinsic value - compared to the old days - and is not a public good of any overriding importance; rather it is seen as being something citizens residually have as a privilege from the state.

This is where we are at.