header-logo header-logo

22 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

​Profession voices qualms about Transforming our Justice System

Lawyers have urged caution on Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and judiciary proposals for more digital courts and fewer court buildings.

The government pledged more than £700m to modernise civil courts and tribunals and more than £270m toward the criminal justice system, in a joint statement from the MoJ, Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals, Transforming our Justice System.

It aims for all civil cases to be started online and for suitable cases to be dealt with entirely online, starting with lower value debt and damages claims and appeals to the social services and child support tribunals. However, the “entire process of civil money claims” will be automated and digitised by 2020, accounting for more than four-fifths of 1.6 million claims issued in the county courts and High Court each year, 83% of which are uncontested.

Specially trained case officers will handle basic case management and case progression to free up the judiciary in civil cases. The MoJ also envisages that “many” of the current 400 court and tribunal buildings will be closed over the next four years, since fewer buildings will be required.

Steve Hynes, director of the Legal Action Group, says: “The biggest barriers to access to justice remain financial and the government seems unwilling to address these.”

Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, Chairman of the Bar, says it is a “laudable vision” but that the Bar has “serious concerns around plans to introduce online courts for all civil money claims by 2020”.

“There is a real risk of entrenching a two-tier justice system, providing a different type of justice to claimants and defendants, depending upon the size of the money claims in dispute.”

Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

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