civil process : lord woolf

• Lord Woolf reviewed the system in 1996 and wrote all the problems he found in his report: The Lord Woolf Report
• The lord woold report led to the Civil Procedure Rules/Act 1997 and the Access to Justice Act 1999
• Both the civil procedure act 1997 and the access to justice act 1999 have completely changed the system of how to sue a defendant
• The Lord Woolf Report found the following main problems with the civil justice system:

  • Expensive
  • Delays
  • Complex
  • Adversarial (means in conflict)
  • Unjust
  • Emphasis on Oral Evidence
• Civil Procedure Act/Rules 1997

  Act created a set of rules on how the civil system should be run
• Civil Procedure Rules

  • Ensure cases are dealt with justly
  • Ensuring parties are on an equal footing
  • Saving expense
  • Dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate
  • Ensuring cases are dealt with quickly and fairly
  • Giving each case sufficient resources,
• The Access to Justice Act introduced 5 major reforms that changed the way in which claimants sue defendants
• Reform 1: Simplified Procedure

  Provided a common procedural code for the County and High Court, replacing the previous separate systems of the 'white book and summons' and 'green book and writ' with the N1 form
• The simplified procedure made it much easier for claimants to understand the system
• Some terminology also changed in the reform of simplified procedure e.g. 'plaintiff' became 'claimant'
• link simplified procedure to civil procedure rules -The simplified procedure helped make the system less complex and helped improve access to justice
• Pre-Action Protocols

  Designed to encourage parties to exchange as much information as early as possible, be in contact with each other and cooperate over the exchange of information
• Pre-Action Protocols

  • Their overall aim is to get parties to settle out of court, thus reducing costs and delays
• Pre-Action Protocols

  Link to CPR of ensuring cases are dealt with justly and fairly and saving expense
• Alternative dispute resolution

  • An example of a pre-action protocol
• Case Management reform

  1. Judges becoming the managers of the cases

  2. Decide trial dates

  3. Decide number of witnesses allowed in a case

  4. Proactive powers to set timetables

  5. Sanction parties that do not cooperate
• Aim of Case Management reform

  Pass the management of the case to the court and not the parties
• Case Management reform -CPR

  Improves efficiency and reduces costs
• Case Management reform -cpr

  Puts parties on an equal footing because the judge is helping the under represented parties
• Effect of Case Management reform -CPR

  Makes the system less adversarial and more inquisitorial because the judges becomes actively involved
• Reform 4: Sanctions

  1. Judges taking on role of case managers

  2. Judges given powers to issue sanctions

  3. Parties do not follow timetables set

  4. Parties delay unnecessarily
• Main sanctions

  • Adverse award of costs ruling in one party's favour
  • Order for a case to be struck out/dismiss case
• Sanctions -CPR

  • Cases are dealt with proportionately
  • Each case given sufficient resources
  • Reduces delays
  • Improves efficiency as parties know consequences for not sticking to timetable
• Reform 5: 3 track system

  • SMALL CLAIMS
  • FAST TRACK
  • MULTI TRACK
• Small Claims

  • Up to £10,000 value (up to £1,000 for personal injury)
  • Court: District Judge-County Court
  • Legal Representation: Not recommended
• Fast Track

  • £10,000-£25,000 value (£1,000-£15,000 for personal injury)
  • Court: District Judge-County Court OR high Court
  • Legal Representation: Optional
• Multi Track

  • Over £25,000 value (Over £15,000 for personal injury)
  • Court: County Court OR High Court
  • Legal Representation: Recommended
• Track system and how This links with all CPR

  Dealing with cases proportionately and with sufficient resources