header-logo header-logo

01 March 2023
Issue: 8015 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-detail

Court reform under fire

Lawyers have highlighted their concerns about the £1.3bn court reform programme, following a devastating report by the National Audit Office (NAO).

The NAO report, ‘Progress on the courts and tribunals reform programme’, published last week, highlighted several failures in implementation, singling out the common platform, the digital case management for the criminal courts, which has been affected by repeated delays, as being ‘of most concern’. For example, in September 2022, the rollout was paused after HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) found the system failed to send more than 3,000 ‘important notifications’ to partner agencies between June 2021 and August 2022. As a result of this, in 35 cases an individual was not fitted with an electronic monitoring tag when they should have been.

The NAO said HMCTS’s focus on delivering reforms quickly has created extra burdens for the criminal courts when they were already under pressure. Despite this, the December 2023 deadline for completion is unlikely to be met.

Other problems included that many online divorce and probate cases needed manual interventions by court staff despite the relevant project being marked as complete.

In terms of value for money, the NAO found HMCTS now expects lifetime savings of £2bn from the reforms—£310m lower than estimates in 2019, when the NAO last reported, owing to revised assumptions, design changes and higher ongoing costs.

Nick Vineall KC, chair of the Bar, said: ‘Many of the problems with the court reform programme identified in the NAO report echo the experiences we have heard from barristers on the ground.’

Law Society president Lubna Shuja said: ‘Our concern, reflected in the NAO’s report, is that delays in the courts are being exacerbated by ineffective reforms, which are costing more time and wasting money.’ She called on HMCTS to provide an updated timetable for completion.

Issue: 8015 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-details

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