header-logo header-logo

18 October 2023
Issue: 8045 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Portals causing stress & delay

Online court services are adding to delays and undermining access to justice, research by the Law Society has found

In a report published this week, Online court services: delivering a more efficient digital justice system, the Law Society highlighted technical issues across the damages claims, public family law and probate online portals.

Three in five solicitors responding to a survey said the portals had caused delays in court proceedings and one third reported increased costs arising as a result had been passed on to clients. Delays were experienced by three-quarters of probate, two-thirds of family public law and 46% of damages claim portal users.

More than half the probate users surveyed said the online process is taking longer than the paper-based system.

One probate practitioner said: ‘We have gone from a system that cost £45 and took two weeks to a system that costs £273 and takes 16 weeks! How is this progress?’

Half the damages claims users said the delays were affecting their clients. Some 70% of the family public law portal users reported technical errors and frequent breakdowns, and the vast majority (80%) reported lack of timeliness and technical support.

Law Society president Nick Emmerson said the court reform programme had enjoyed many successes, such as a high uptake of digital probate applications and more than 70% of all courtrooms being able to allow parties to join remotely.

However, the delays were ‘having a real impact on clients, especially as these portals are often used at an already challenging and difficult time.

‘The increased delays and associated uncertainty these portals have created are causing additional stress.’

The Law Society made several recommendations, including ‘a user-led design and development process involving the public, legal professionals and the advice sector’; and software to improve communication between online court systems and solicitors’ case management systems.

Issue: 8045 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
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