header-logo header-logo

18 September 2019
Issue: 7856 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Technology , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Cancellations & delays mar progress of court modernisation programme

The courts modernisation programme must not go the way of HS2, the chair of the Bar Council has warned, after progress was revealed to be behind schedule.

A report last week by the National Audit Office (NAO), ‘Transforming courts and tribunals: a progress update’, found HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was facing a ‘significant challenge’ to deliver the programme on time and on budget.

HMCTS has set up its first two courts and tribunals service centres as well as some new services including online divorce, civil money claims and probate services with simplified forms and faster processing.

However, it has also cancelled two projects and extended the timetable for the reform programme by one year until December 2023, meaning it will now take seven years. HMCTS had previously extended the timetable from four to six years.

So far, HMCTS has closed 127 courts and tribunals in England and Wales. Future closures have been delayed until capacity is freed up, and it has reduced the number of closures from 96 to 77 following a value for money assessment.

Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said: ‘HMCTS must maintain a strong grip if it is to deliver a system that works better for everyone and delivers savings for the taxpayer.’

Richard Atkins QC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘This modernisation programme must not become the HS2 of the justice system.

‘Whilst the Bar Council is relieved to see that the planned court closures have been scaled back, we have previously expressed considerable concern about the lack of access to justice for people who find that they live many miles from their nearest court, and we remain concerned over the future.’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll