Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Civil Courts & Civil Processes - Coggle Diagram
Civil Courts & Civil Processes
woolf reforms
present system of civil justice is based on reforms recommended by lord woolfe in his report access to justice (1996) - stated that civil justice system should
just in results it delivers
fair in way it treats litigants
offer appropriate procedures at reasonable cost
deal with cases at reasonable speed
understandable to those who use it
provide as much certainty as nature of particular case allows
be effective/adequately resourced/organized
report found that virtually none of these points were being acheived in civil courts - system criticised for being unequal/expensive/slow/uncertain/complicated
report contained 303 recommendations - most important ones were...
extending value of small claims from the then limit of 1000 to 10,000
providing fast track for straightforward cases of moderate value - 10,000-25,000
providing a multi track for larger claims - now over 25,000
encouraging the used of alternative dispute resolution
giving judges more responsibility for managing cases
make greater use of info tech
simplifying documents/procedures and having single set of rules governing proceedings in high & county courts
having shorter timetables for cases to reach court and for lengths of trials
ads & disads
advantages:
culture of litigation has change for the better - greater co-operation between parties
increase in rate of settlement in cases
judges now taking more active role in managing cases
less delay
disadvantages:
main problem of cost still remains - 15 yrs on from woolfe reforms and system has not kept pace with economic/social shifts that have taken place - system needed to focus more on dispute resolution & debt recovery rather than ideals of justice
costs of taking case to court are often more than the amount claimed - ideal is that disputes should be resolved in most appropriate forum so processes/costs are corresponding with complexity of issues involved
civil courts
high court: based at royal courts of justice - has judges sitting at number of towns/cities in england & wales - has pwoer to hear any civil case of unlimited value & where case is too complicated to be heard in county court
3 divisions - queens bench, chancery & family
queens bench division: president is lord chief justice - over 70 judges sitting in that division.
normally deals with contract&tort cases where amount claimed is over 100,000 & issues complex
exceptions are personal injury cases - deals with cases where claim is over 50,000 & defamation cases.
only multi-track cases are tried by single judge (usually)
formal/expensive/takes a long time to come to trial
chancery division: chancellor of high court is head of division - approx 14 high court judges assigned to division
main businesss is disputes concerned with matters such as insolvency (companies & individuals), enforcement of mortgages, disputes relating to trust property, copyright and patents, intellectual property and contested probate actions
there is a special companies court which deals mainly with winding up companies - heard by single judge
formal/expensive/takes a long time to come to trial
family division: crime and courts act 2013 created single family court to deal with all family cases
includes divorce, custody of children & maintenance
judges come from all levels of judiciary - magistrates on family panel/ district judges/circuit judges/ high court judges
court of appeal (civil division): main appellate court for civil cases - heard by master of rolls
hears appeals from cases orginally tried in all 3 divisions of high court & county court for multi-track cases
permission to appeal is required in most cases - granted by lower court where decision made/court of appeal
permission to appeal will only be granted where court considers that an appeal would have real prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason why appeal should be heard
if appeal is heard in court of appeal - heard by 3 judges - grounds of appeal: error of law by trial judge/liability/amount of damages awarded
supreme court: appeals from court of appeal/on occasion, direct from high court under leapfrog provisions
heard by justices of supreme court - sit as uneven panel up to 9
permission to appeal is needed - either supreme or lower court
number of appeals is small - 70 cases per year involving civil law (1/2 about statutory interpretation)
grounds of appeal have to be based on error of law by trial judge/court of appeal - will not rule on damages awarded
pre-trial procedures
1) starting a court case: should be regarded as last resort & should try to resolve civil problem without going to court
when dispute arises - some form of negotiation should take place either by meeting or writing to the person setting out complaint
many cases should be resolved at this stage by the other party agreeing to refund money/change goods/pay debt or claim
2) legal advice: if no settlement then aggrevied person must decide whether they are prepared to take the matter further & get legal advice & lawyer to write to other person
may lead to bargaining - where contact takes place between parties and eventually compromise is reached
if the other party refused to compromise/negotiate then aggrieved party must decide whether its worth pursuing matter further - may involve going to court/ADR
3) going to court: take a case to court can be expensive/complicated even if it is a diy and not using a lawyer. following issues are:
is there a valid claim based on legal issues
does the party against whom action is being take on have enough money to make them worth suing
are the issues complicated - will a lawyer be needed - good evidence - is person prepared to spend time pursuing this claim
is adr a better option
is person taking the case prepared to pay an initial court fee/possibly pay the other party costs if claim is lost
in tort - will lawyer be prepared to take a claim on a no win, no fee basis
4) filing a claim: decided to pursue a court case, a claim form has to be filed. sets out:
name and address of claimant for sending court docs
defendants name & address where claim form is sent to
what is being claimed - amount of money/other remedy e.g. injunction
the grounds for making the claim - showing relevant law
allocation of cases - has to be decided which court to use either county (incl small claims court)/high court
when a court claim is issued & defended, it has to be allocated to a track - decision on which track should be used is made by district judge in county/procedural judge in high court
personal injury claim over 50,000 can be started in high court
small claims: under 10,000 - county court
relatively cheap & simple way of making claim for small amount of money - otherwise costs of action could be far more than the amount in dispute
claimants - encouraged to keep costs low by taking their own case & use of lawyers discouraged as winner cant claim legal costs from losing party
district judges - encouraged to be more inquisitorial - is parties agree its possible to have paper trial without any witnesses where both sides set their points out on paper then judge reads these with any supporting paperwork & makes decision on paper evidence
fast track cases: between 10,000 and 25,000 - also personal injury/housing cases over 1,000 to 25,000 - county court - the district judge will decide whether case is suitable for fast track if so then strict timetable will be set for pre-trial matters - aimed at preventing 1 or both sides form wasting time and running unnecessary costs - once case is set down for hearing the aim is to hear the case within 30 wks - timetable has considerably reduced delays for this type of claim - will be heard by circuit judge in open court with formal procedure - in order to speed up trial, hearing will be limited to one day & expert witnesses also limited
multi-track cases: claims for more than 25,000 - high court
case is started in county court but if claim over 100,0000/complicated issues of law then goes to high court
case heard by circuit judge - will manage case from moment it is allocated to this route - judge can set timetable - even ask parties to try an method of ADR in effort to prevent waste of costs
ads & disads of using small claims track
advantages:
cost of issuing a claim is low
loser will not have to pay other persons legal costs
claimants do not have to use lawyers, but are encouraged to take the case themsleves
procedure is quicker and simpler than for other tracks
in hearing, district judge should help parties explain their case
disadvantages:
legal funding for paying for a lawyer is not available, though it may be possible in tort claim to fund the case through a no win, no fee arrangement
where one party is a business - more likely to use lawyer - unrepresented litigant at a disadvantages
district judges are not always helpful to unrepresented litigants
even if case is won, doesnt mean claimant will recover their awarded money from claimant - 60% of claimants actually recieve all money awarded by court
ads & disads of civil courts
advantages:
process if fair/everyone treated alike
judge is impartial
judge is legal expert
decisions can be enforced through the courts
appeals are possible against liability and amount of damages awarded
help with funding may be available in certain cases - very limited legal aid or no win no fee arrangements
disadvantages:
cost of taking proceedings incl loser paying the winner costs
delay due to procedures and waiting for hearings
process is complex usually needing specialist lawyers
uncertainty of outcome until a final decision is made
confrontational process, partly due to use of lawyers and having to win or lose the case
appeals: appellate courts that hear appeals from lower courts - main appellate courts are the court of appeal (civil) and supreme court
can be made in any civil case against liability and or the award - most often amount of damages ordered to pay
appeal court can either:
confirm/alter decision on liability
confirm, increase or decrease the amount of damages
appeals from county court hearing: for fast track cases decided by a circuit judge, an appeal is heard by a high court judge
for final decisions in multi-track cases heard in county court, right of appeal is to the high court
appeal route:
district judge > circuit judge > court of appeal (civil)
circuit judge > high court judge > court of appeal (civil)
appeals from high court hearing: appeal usually goes to court of appeal but in rare cases there may be a leapfrog apppeal direct to supreme court
for a leapfrog appeal, it must involve an issue that is of national importace/raises issues of sufficient importance to warrant leapfrog/benefit of going to supreme court rather than court of appeal must be considered
appeal route:
high court > court of appeal (civil) > supreme
high court > {leapfrog appeal} > supreme
civil procedural rules
result of woolf report, new civil procedures were introduced in 1999 - overriding objective to enable courts to deal with cases justly & proportionate cost
means that courts should try to:
ensure that parties are on an equal footing
save expense
deal with cases in a way that is equal to amount being claimed - importance/complexity
ensure case is dealt with quickly/fairly
allocate an appropriate share of courts resources - smaller claims do not take up more time than they justify
judges more control over proceedings - can set timetables and make sure that parties do not drag unecessarily - rule 1.4 of civil procedural rules states that as well as fixing timetables, active case management includes:
idenfitying issues at early stage
deciding which issues need investigation & trial
applying rules in court: case management has lead to issues in cases being identified more quickly, so that more cases are settled without a trial
use of ADR ha been encouraged - as courts will make a costs order against those who unreasonably refuse ADR
judges set strict timetables - and claim can be struck out becouse of a delay
Vinos V M&S (2000) claimants solicitors had issued a claim within time limit and told defendants insurers that they had done so - they were nine days later in serving claim on defendant and case was struck out