MoJ reforms to double small claims limit, streamline county courts
The small claims limit will be increased to £10,000 and the county court system will be streamlined, under plans unveiled this week by the Ministry of Justice.
In its response to the Solving Disputes in the County Court consultation, the MoJ also said the High Court would be freed up to “only deal with necessarily complex cases”. For example, the level below which non-personal injury claims cannot be heard in the High Court will be raised from £25,000 to £100,000.
The government’s proposals include:
- Doubling the small claims limit to £10,000, with a view to increasing it again to £15,000 subject to evaluation. The current £1,000 limit for personal injury and housing disrepair claims will stay;
- Automatically referring all small claims to the Small Claims Mediation Service, “though mediation will not be mandatory”. The MoJ added that cases proceeding to court would not need comprehensive legal preparation;
- Introducing a single county court. “This clears the way for all claims to be handled electronically at modern centralised business centres, and to then be allocated across neighbouring courts according to demand”;
- Moving some administrative form work from judges to administrators, “leaving judges to concentrate on making good decisions rather than managing cases”;
- Restrictions will be lifted on High Court judges sitting in county courts while waiting to take cases in the High Court;
- Extending the web-based scheme that controls legal costs for the majority of personal injury cases. It will be extended to employer and public liability personal injury cases and to road traffic accident cases worth up to £25,000.
There will be no change to the fast track limit of £25,000.
The MoJ said the aim was to make dispute resolution in civil courts “cheaper, quicker and less daunting”. The moves will see up to 80,000 cases diverted to the Small Claims Mediation Service.
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said: “Without effective civil justice, businesses couldn’t trade, individuals couldn’t enforce their rights, and government couldn’t fulfil its duties. But individuals and businesses tell me that the civil justice system at the moment can sometimes be intimidating and that they don’t know if using the system will be worth the time, expense and hassle of going to court.
“I want to make the system as easy and transparent as possible. I want people to be able to resolve their disputes cheaply and simply through the courts’ very successful mediation service, and I want judges freed up to make quick and effective judgments based on the facts of a case, without unnecessary legal complication.”
Law firm Browne Jacobson expressed concern at the extension of the portal to employer’s liability cases and public liability cases.
““Whilst we can see merit in extending the reach of the portal to employer’s liability claims since there is a reporting requirement, we expressed concern [in the firm’s response to the consultation] as to whether, practically speaking, it could work when one is dealing with public liability claims,” the firm said.
“Given the difficulties in sometimes identifying the correct defendant in public liability claims we wonder how this would work when there is a requirement for a defendant to respond within 21 days. Would most public liability cases then fall outside the portal? It is suggested that by introducing these measures that settlement would be encouraged.”
The firm also highlighted how proposals in the consultation for mandatory mediation information sessions and for mandatory fixed fee directions had been dropped.
The government’s response can be viewed here.
