Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31LocalGovernmentLawyer Dispute Resolution 2016 5 new cases, up 14% on the previous year. There was a 20% rise in the four months from April to July this year, up 20% on the corresponding period in 2015. “The reasons for the increase are little understood and are currently being investigated,” the President admitted, saying that that was one reality. “The other reality is that we are unlikely to see any increase in resources, judicial or otherwise.” In the second of his View from the President’s Chambers, Sir James went on to warn of a “clear and imminent crisis” in the family courts, arguing that the people on the ground, who make the family justice system work, were at full stretch and their caseloads could not be added to. In the spotlight The Dispute Resolution 2016 survey meanwhile also saw many respondents predicting increases in types of legal challenge that can be high profile and sometimes extremely expensive to resolve, such as judicial review (55%), housing (53%), planning (48%) and procurement (43%). This is despite the introduction of increased court fees, which were intended to help filter out weaker claims. When it comes to judicial review, the need to restructure or cut services in the light of financial pressures has brought a wide range of legal challenges. Proposed changes to library services – whether closures or moves to community-run operations – have in particular seen campaigners bring or threaten court action. One of the most recent examples involved a threat of legal action against Darlington Borough Council, with the authority reportedly setting aside its decision as a result. “Residents’ expectations are the same but resources are lower so there will be more complaints,” notes one respondent. Another comments: “Pressure on local authority resources are leading to decisions that may be susceptible to challenge, increased by the impact of central Government policies.” [Respondents’ thoughts on the likely impact of Government reforms to judicial review are considered in more detail below] In the planning arena, meanwhile, the return of the economy to growth, reforms to planning policy and guidance and the Government’s efforts to push housebuilding have all contributed. “Developers will continue being more aggressive than in the past to get their projects approved,” notes one respondent. Down and out? There are areas of disputes where respondents are predicting a fall in cases, but this is not necessarily a positive development as they relate to the prosecution of fraud (22% predict a cut in the number of cases brought) and trading standards (11%). In August the Chartered Trading Standards Institute warned that one complex Crown Court case a year would be beyond the resources of some councils’ trading standards teams. The service is understaffed, the Institute said, with the number of officers having fallen by 53% since 2009 and the total spend dropping from £213m to £124m. A reduction in trading standards prosecutions will surely lead to a lessening in protection for the public from scams and allow existing scams (particularly low level ones) to go on for longer. There are signs that some authorities are realising that running trading standards services on a shoestring is unsustainable, believes one respondent, who says: “There are fewer resources for prosecutions but councils are waking up to the need for prosecutions and the use of new fraud powers.” Staying tight-lipped For the Dispute Resolution 2016 survey, we also examined other issues such as whether local authorities had seen a rise in litigants in person (LiPS) and what impact various government reforms to the justice system have had. Faced by Treasury demands to cut its spend, the Ministry of Justice has sought to bring down the legal aid budget, by reducing the areas in which it is available and the pool of claimants who are eligible Fig 1