Civil Appeals and Evaluation

• Civil Court Appeals:

  • All appeals must be submitted within 21 days of the decision being made.
  • There is no automatic right of appeal - permission must be given. This is generally only given when it is likely the appeal will succeed. The appeal must be based on:
  • Error of Law
  • Error of Fact
  • Procedural Unfairness
• Error of Law - the judge who made the decision interpreted the law incorrectly.

  Error of Fact - either the judge did not understand the facts correctly, or the parties did not submit all of the fact correctly in the first trial.

  Procedural Unfairness - some element of the trial procedure unfairly affected one of the parties. This may include that they were not given time to put their case forward, or that there is found to be some bias such as a connection with the judge and one of the parties.
• First Appeals - if permission is granted, the First Appeal hearing will depend on the "track" the case was allocated to, and where the initial case was heard. (Original Hearing - OH, First Appeal - FA)

  • Small Claims Track - County Court (OH), County Court (FA)
  • Fast Track - County Court (OH), County Court or High Court (FA)
  • Multi Track - High Court or County Court (OH), Court of Appeal only if conditions are met (FA)
• Second Appeals - in some circumstances, there is a chance of a Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal. For Multi Track cases, these rules apply for First Appeals too.

  • Access to Justice Act 1999, s.55
• Access to Justice Act 1999, s.55:

  • An appeal of a civil case to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is only allowed if permission is granted by the Court of Appeal.
  • Permission will only be granted if:
  • The case raises an important point of law.
  • OR
  • The Court feels there is another compelling reason to allow the appeal.
• Appeals to the Supreme Court - A final appeal to the Supreme Court (Formerly House of Lords) will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. It must be a case of public/ national importance, and the Supreme Court must give their permission. They see around 200 cases per year.

  • Leapfrog Procedure
• Leapfrog Procedure:

  • Some cases may be able to 'leapfrog' the Court of Appeal and go directly to the Supreme Court for their appeal hearing.
  • This would only be allowed in exceptional circumstances if:
  • It is an issue of national/ public importance.
  • it is an issue important enough to warrant allowing the leapfrog
  • The Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous precedent and only the Supreme Court can overrule that precedent.
• Positives of Civil Courts:

  • Fair
  • Judge is a legal expert
  • Enforceable
  • Appeals process
• Fair:

  • Rule of precedent create consistency between cases.
  • This ultimately makes the outcomes fair.
  • Judges are neutral and not-biased.
  • Alternatives to court (e.g. arbitration) do not follow these same rules so court it best.
• Judge is a Legal Expert:

  • Judges are legally trained and experienced.
  • Leads to correct legal outcomes.
  • Especially in specialty divisions of the High Court.
• Decisions enforceable:

  • Decisions of the court are legally binding.
  • Parties have to stick to them or face consequences.

  
  

  • Alternatives to court (e.g. mediation) do not provide this certainty of outcomes.
• Appeals Process:

  • Civil courts provides clear appeals process if there are errors or unfairness.
  • But permission needed and multi-track cases this is hard as goes straight to Court of Appeal.
• Negatives of Civil Courts:

  • Expensive
  • Inequality
  • Damages Future Relations
  • Lacks technical knowledge
• Expensive:

  • Pay for use of court + legal fees + potential compensation all add up.
  • Losing party also has to pay costs of other party.
• Inequality:

  • If one party has access to extra resources can become unfair (e.g. quality of lawyers).
  • Inequality can be reason to appeal to ECtHR (but will parties bother?)
• Damages Future Relations:

  • Court is adversarial (battle) with winner and loser - damages relationships (e.g. in business/ family law)
  • Alternatives to court (e.g. mediation) allow parties to communicate rather than battle.
• Lacks technical knowledge:

  • Judges are legal experts but may not be experts on area of the case (e.g. specific business topics) = wrong outcomes.
  • Alternatives to court (e.g. arbitration) use experts specialised in the topic.
• Reforms of the Civil Courts:

  • Lord Woolf Reforms:
  • Brought in the three tracks in 1999.
  • Has led to more co-operation and less delays.
  • But still lengthy and still to expensive.
  • Lord Briggs 2016:
  • Online Courts (ODR) introduced for claims up to £25000.
  • Intermediate Track 2023:
  • Introduced in 2023 to speed up process by giving separate route for higher value but low complexity cases.