Interim review of civil courts proposes online court for claims up to £25,000
There is a clear and pressing need to create an online court for claims up to £25,000, a senior judge has said in his interim review of the civil courts structure in England and Wales.
Lord Justice Briggs said such a court should be “designed for the first time to give litigants effective access to justice without having to incur the disproportionate cost of using lawyers”.
In his review, which can be seen here, the judge suggested there should be three stages to the court’s operation:
- Stage 1: a largely automated, inter-active online process for the identification of the issues and the provision of documentary evidence;
- Stage 2: conciliation and case management, by case officers;
- Stage 3: resolution by judges.
The online court would use documents on screen, telephone, video or face to face meetings to meet the needs of each case.
The review also identified as “urgent priorities” the need to: (a) prepare the civil judiciary to play their part in the management of the HMCTS reforms from April 2016, including Judicial College training and staff to support the leadership judges; (b) as soon as possible design the structure and software which will be needed for the re-organised courts, “particularly the Online Court”; and (c) ease the burden on the Court of Appeal - in this respect pProposals are already due to be made in April 2016 but the report seeks further suggestions.
Lord Justice Briggs was commissioned by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls to conduct the review. His initial report was based on informal consultation; it will be followed by more formal consultation to be completed by the end of May 2016. A final report is expected to be delivered by the end of July.
Provisional views and proposals contained in the formal consultation include:
- The transfer of some of judges’ more routine and non-contentious work to case officers supervised by judges. Parties would have the right to have a case officer’s decision reconsidered by a judge.
- There should not be a move to a unified civil court ahead of the implementation of the reform programme.
- There should be a stronger concentration of civil expertise among the circuit judges and district judges.
- All civil work with a regional connection should be tried in the regions, regardless of value, subject to very limited specialist exceptions such as patents.
- A way must be found to prevent the permanent loss of civil hours to meet the needs of urgent family cases.
The interim review also poses a number of questions on reforms to rights and routes to appeal, enforcement and boundaries.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, said: “I am very grateful to Lord Justice Briggs for producing such a comprehensive and thought-provoking report for the first stage of his review. It is a remarkable piece of work, particularly as it was assembled in six months.
“The report is a timely contribution to the debate on the structure of the civil courts at a time of unprecedented change. We are facing considerable challenges but there are also many opportunities, above all with the prospect of digitising court processes.
“The time is ripe for reform, and it is in any event essential and unavoidable. This review will make a considerable contribution to that process and to the future shape of the civil courts.”
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, said: “I echo the Lord Chief Justice’s thanks and praise for this important report. This reflects the many changes in the civil justice landscape and the wider legal, political and economic context.
“I welcome the proposals on an online court, which I have supported for some time as a means of improving access to justice and providing litigants in person with a system designed specifically for them.
“We are now entering an important phase in the review, and all those with a view on these issues and the future shape of the civil courts will have an opportunity to offer their thoughts and suggestions. I urge people to do so, to make their voice heard in the reform process.”
