header-logo header-logo

30 May 2013
Issue: 7562 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Privatised court service fears

MoJ denies plans for “wholesale” privatisation of the courts service

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has moved to quash speculation that it plans to privatise the courts service.

Private companies could take over court buildings and staff, saving the Treasury £1bn per year, according to press reports this week. According to The Times, the independence of the courts would be preserved by a Royal Charter, and judges and magistrates would not be affected. Hedge fund investment would be encouraged and extra funds would be generated by hiking fees for wealthy litigants.

Chancellor George Osborne confirmed this week that the MoJ is one of several departments that have agreed to cut a further 10% from their budget.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said in a statement to Parliament in March that he was looking at ways to provide a “more efficient service”, and wanted “to ensure that those who litigate in our courts pay their fair share”.

An MoJ spokesman says: “We have always said we are determined to deliver a courts system that is more effective and efficient and provides improved services for victims and witnesses.

“The proposals being considered are not the wholesale privatisation of the courts service. We are committed to the firm, fair and independent administration of justice.”

Francesca Kaye, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, says: “While the proposals seem not to affect the judiciary, they belie a naïve understanding of how our courts work.

“As a result of changes in functions and cuts, many senior court staff take on quasi-judicial functions on a daily basis. Under proposals as seen, these people will be working for private companies, eroding their current independence and putting the integrity of the court system at risk. There is real scope for conflict of interest here.

“The record to date on privatisation of some court functions is woefully poor. The privatisation of the court interpreters service has been a disaster—far from delivering improvements, we have seen ongoing failings and problems.”

A Law Society spokesman says: “Improving the way the courts are run inside the public sector would produce real benefits to the taxpayer and citizen, rather than adding to the profits of private operators.”

Issue: 7562 / Categories: Legal News
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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll