Civil Justice System 5 – History of Recent Reforms
Options to resolve civil dispute
Negotiate/complain/reach agreement or ADR
No agreement/ADR doesn’t work – only option way to resolve is to issue a civil claim
Recent Reforms
1998 – Woolf reforms – Civil Procedure Rules
o Aim of Civil Justice Review: improve machinery of civil justice – reduce cost, delay + complexity
o Lord Woolf found
Too expensive – often costs exceeded value of claim
Too slow – too adversarial + parties set the pace
Lack of equality between parties – wealthy have an advantage
Too uncertain – in terms of time + costs
System incomprehensible to many litigants
o Woolf: specific measures in Civil Proce4dure Rules 1998
To promote settlement/trial as last resort
Pre-action protocols – setting out cased + disclosing evidence before issuing Claim
Part 36 offers – a rule about costs if offer rejected + outcome at trial is same/better
Encouraging use of ADR
To reduce complexity
Civil Procedure Rules + single code
o Replaced old rules specific to High Court (Rules of Supreme Court)
+ County Court (County Court Rules)
Structure of rules: Different ‘Parts’ dealing with different aspect of procedure
o Rule, plus Practice Direction
To reduce costs
Case management inc allocated to one of three tracks
o Proportionate to value of claim (or complexity)
Single Joint Experts for lower value claims
Some fixed costs (cap on amount recoverable from opponent)
Part 36 offers – a rule about costs if offer rejected + outcome at trial = same/better
o Did Woolf reforms work
CPR: currently 1311 pages long
100th update on 1 Oct 2018 – concerns about delay + cost continue
o Costs shifting rule in England + Wales
General rule: unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s legal costs
Hence: Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) – ‘no win no fee’
Client only liable for own lawyers’ costs if wins
o ‘Champerty’ and ‘maintenance’ – common law rules used to prohibit champerty + maintenance
Maintenance: 3rd party assisting/ ‘maintaining’ another person’s litigation
Champerty: paying for litigation in return for a share of the ‘winnings’
1999 – Access to Justice Act 1999 – legal aid changes + ‘no win no fee’ agreements
o Changed legal aid/funding for personal injury claims (PI)
o PI claims make up large proportion of civil litigation cases
Most civil claims issued = money claims but PI = largest proportion for ‘damages’
o AJA 1999 removed PI from legal aid + enabled lawyers to offer ‘no win no fee’/conditional fee
agreements (CFAs)
o SS 58 and 58A:
Provided that ‘no win no fee agreements’ were enforceable
So that costs could be recovered from unsuccessful party
At same time legal aid = removed as source of funding for personal injury claims
o How are litigation lawyers paid
Solicitors: usually by the hour/fixed sums for routine items
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller jessicaraghwani. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.13. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.