nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

1. Introduction

verfasst von : Neil Andrews

Erschienen in: The Three Paths of Justice

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This opening introduces the Woolf Reports (1995, 1996) that produced the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 1998). It reports the aims of the Woolf Reforms (1995–8) and the Jackson changes (2009–2013). It also identifies four enduring features that continue after the reforms. There are three main paths of justice: Court proceedings; Arbitration; Mediation. The path to court judgment is not the only route to justice. There are two otter routes: mediation and arbitration. They too complement each other. The overall picture is complex and interconnecting. The four enduring features of English civil proceedings are: (1) England and Wales retain a divided legal profession, lawyers being solicitors or barristers, unless they have become solicitor-advocates, a rare category; (2) the general rule is that the winner is entitled to recover his costs from the defeated party; (3) parties determine the scope of the litigation and select their witnesses; (4) trial is a rare event, and nowadays nearly always heard by a judge without a jury. As for court proceedings, there are six phases: (1) the pre-action phase; (2) commencement and pleadings; (3) case management and preparation for trial (factual evidence, expert evidence, and disclosure); (4) trial and judgment; (5) appeal; (6) enforcement. Practical access to justice is achieved for small claims and access is enjoyed by oligarchs and large companies litigating matters worth several million pounds. Otherwise there is a crisis of non-access to justice. One significant improvement for claimants (part of the Jackson package of changes) is that claimants suing for personal injury are not at a costs risk if they lose (QOCS in personal injury cases. Another problem has been delay. Matters improved in the last fifteen years. But in the Court of Appeal there are either major inefficiencies or there are not enough judges who are expected to perform too many tasks. The logjam in the Court of Appeal is going to take years to clear. A further problem is that even if a claimant obtains a money judgment, there can be real problems in getting that judgment enforced against defendant’s assets.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nächstes Kapitel Principles and Transnational Dimensions

Bibliography, Sections 1–4.

Bibliography, Sections 6–8.

Bibliography, Section 9.

Bibliography, Section 11.

Bibliography, Section 10.1; on the whole range of dispute resolution systems, S Blake, J Browne, S Sime, The Jackson ADR Handbook (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2016) and H Brown and A Marriott, ADR Principles and Practice (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2011).

S Blake (see preceding note), 2.26, 16.37 to 16.41; K Mackie, D Miles, W Marsh, Tony Allen, The ADR Practice Guide (Tottel Publishing, London, 2000), 13.1 and 13.1 (not in later editions).

K Mackie, et al. (see preceding note) (2000), 13.2 (not in 2007 edn).

[1993] AC 334, 345-6, HL (clause 67).

S Blake, J Browne, S Sime, The Jackson ADR Handbook (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2016), Chap. 23, section D; Andrews ECP (2013) 9.27 n 31; E Ferran, ‘Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the UK Financial Sector’ (2002) 21 CJQ 135; R Nobles, ‘Access to Justice through Ombudsmen: the Courts’ Response to the Pensions Ombudsman’ (2002) 21 CJQ 94; Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (London, 1995), 111 at [40].

Bibliography, Section X.A; Harding v Paice [2016] EWCA Civ 1231, [2016] 1 WLR 4068; Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc [2015] UKSC 38, [2015] 1 WLR 2961, at [11] to [15]; Pegram Shopfitters Ltd v Tally Weijl [2003] EWCA Civ 1750, [2004] 1 WLR 2082, especially at [1] to [10]; so-called ‘adjudication’ under Part II, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, and the Scheme for Construction Contracts Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/649).

The Jackson ADR Handbook (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2016), Chap. 22.

Commercial Court Guide, section G2; Neil Andrews, English Civil Justice and Remedies: Progress and Challenges: Nagoya Lectures (Shinzan Sha Publishers, Tokyo, 2007) 3.23.

The Civil Procedure Rules (1998) (‘CPR’): (http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/menus/rules.htm); see also: Commercial Court Guide and The Chancery Guide (2016) (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/high-court/the-chancery-division/guide/).

Bibliography, Section 1.2.

Bibliography, Section 2.

Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995).

Sir Rupert Jackson, Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales—Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson’s Recommendations: The Government Response (Cm 8041, 2011); Jackson RCJ (2018).

Briggs IR (2015); for comment, Neil Andrews, ‘Improving Justice Despite Austerity: Making Do or Making Better?’ (2015) 20 ZZP Int 1–24.

Briggs FR (2016).

E Palmer, T Cornford, A Guinchard, Y Marique (eds), Access to Justice: Beyond the Policies and Politics of Austerity (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2016).

Bibliography, Section 11; H Genn, ‘Understanding Civil Justice’ (1997) 48 CLP 155, 177 ff; S Roberts, ‘Settlement as Civil Justice’ (2000) 63 MLR 739–47 (and earlier ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution and Civil Justice…’ (1993) 56 MLR 452; ‘The Paths of Negotiation’ (1996) 49 CLP 97–109; for his study of ‘ADR’, M Palmer and S Roberts, Dispute Processes (Cambridge University Press, 2005; reprinted 2008), and M Galanter and M Cahill, ‘Most Cases Settle: Judicial Promotion and Regulation of Settlements’ (1994) 46 Stanford L Rev 1329 (on the USA practice); Foskett on Compromise (8th edn, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015).

Sir Leonard Hoffmann, ‘Changing Perspectives on Civil Litigation’ (1993) 56 MLR 297, noting the increasing resort to pre-trial summary procedures, pre-action disclosure, witness statements, and provisional and protective relief.

e.g., M Galanter, ‘The Vanishing Trial…in Federal and State Courts’ (2004) 1 J Empirical Legal Studies 451; J Langbein, ‘The Disappearance of Civil Trial in the United States’ (2012) 122 Yale LJ 522; J Resnik, ‘For Owen M Fiss: Some Reflections on the Triumph and Death of Adjudication’ (2003) 58 Miami U L Rev 173; J Resnik, ‘Whither and Whether Adjudication’ (2006) 86 Boston ULRev 1101, 1123 ff; J Resnik, ‘Uncovering, Discovering and Disclosing How the Public Dimensions of Court-Based Processes are at Risk’ (2006) 81 Chicago-Kent LR 521 and J Resnik and DE Curtis, ‘From “Rites” to “Rights” of Audience: The Utilities and Contingencies of the Public’s Role in Court Business’ in A Masson and K O’Connor (eds), Representation of Justice (Brussels, 2007); A Miller, ‘The Pre-trial Rush to Judgment: Are the “Litigation Explosion”, “Liability Crisis”, and Efficiency Cliches Eroding our Day in Court and Jury Commitments?’(2003) 78 NYULRev 982.

Minkin v Landsberg [2015] EWCA Civ 1152, [2016] 1 WLR 1489; the background to this decision is explained by King LJ at [64] to [77], commenting on the absence of legal aid (at [65] and [66]), and the need (at [76]) for restricted legal intervention to plug this gap.

OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG [2017] EWCA Civ 195, [2017] 1 WLR 3465, at [39], cited at 5.36.

[2014] UKSC 18, [2014] 1 WLR 933.

CPR 21.10 (introduced in 2007); Foskett The Law and Practice of Compromise (8th edn, London, 2015) Chap. 27, noting the impact of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which took effect on 1 October 2007.

Neil Andrews, ‘The Duty to Consider Mediation: Salvaging Value from the European Mediation Directive’, in N Trocker and A De Luca (eds), La Mediazione Civile all Luce della Direttiva 2008/52/CE (Firenze University Press, 2011), 13 to 34.

Briggs IR (2015), 2.22 (see also 7.18 to 7.27).

Ibid., at 7.20, on ‘early neutral evaluation’ within the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Ibid., 2.92: the Financial Ombudsman Service resolved 310,000 disputes in 2014; it has a staff of 4000; there are 300 ombudsmen; there are 2000 adjudicators; 2.93, ‘the civil courts have no formal link with ombudsmen services.’

On the interaction of the courts and ADR, Briggs IR (2015), 2.86 to 2.93; 11.20 and 11.21; Briggs CMR (2013), Chap. 5; 16.36 to 16.38.

Briggs IR (2015), 2.86.

Briggs CMR (2013), 5.9 to 5.16; and 16.36 to 16.38.

JUSTICE, ‘Delivering Justice in an Age of Austerity’ (April 2015), 2.9 (http://justice.org.uk/our-work/areas-of-work/access-to-justice/justice-austerity/).

Briggs IR (2015), 2.30, 2.90.

Ibid., 7.18; 7.24.

Andrews ACP (2018), Chaps. 30 to 43.

Ibid., at 18.67 ff; Lord Thomas CJ, ‘Developing commercial law through the courts: rebalancing the relationship between the courts and arbitration’ (BAILII lecture, 9 March 2016) (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/lcj-speech-bailli-lecture-20160309.pdf).

Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Butterworths, London, 1989), Chap. 20.

DAC (1996), at [340] to [342].

Ibid., at [343].

Neil Andrews, ‘Case Management in the English Commercial Court’, in R Stürner and M Kawano (eds), International Contract Litigation, Arbitration and Judicial Responsibility in Transnational Disputes (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany, 2011), 285, 292 n 57.

s 93, AA (1996), and sch 2 (previous provisions were repealed; Sch 4, AA (1996), repealing s 4, Administration of Justice Act 1970).

Oral communication 2015 concerning the practice in the South of England.

Commercial Court Guide section G.2.

Neil Andrews, ‘Case Management…’, see above, 296-7.

Andrews ACP (2013) vol 2, Chap. 2 for discussion and extensive literature (not in second edition).

Terms of appointment cited in Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (London, 1995), introduction.

Ibid.

Access to Justice: Final Report (London, 1996).

Collected at Andrews ACP (2018), 1.08.

Neil Andrews, ‘A New Civil Procedural Code for England: Party-Control ‘Going, Going, Gone’’ (2000) 19 CJQ 19-38.

CPR 24.2: Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, 92, CA.

CPR 31.6; on the pre-CPR excessive documentary disclosure system, Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995), Chap. 21, at para’s 1–9.

AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1507, 1522-3, CA.

On this topic, see also Chap. 3 at 3.02 .

Lord Woolf’s two reports are: Access to Justice: Interim Report (London, 1995) and Access to Justice: Final Report (London, 1996).

Lord Neuberger, ‘Docketing: Completing Case management’s Unfinished Revolution’ (2012), at [11]: (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/mor-speech-solicitors-cost-conference-lecture-feb2012.pdf).

Ibid., at [14].

On these aspects of CPR Part 35 and D Dwyer, The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence (Cambridge University Press, 2008).

Southwark LBC v Maamefowaa Kofiadu [2006] EWCA Civ 281, at [148].

Jackson FR (2010); generally, see Chap. 5 of the current work, and see Bibliography, Section 3.4.

Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, with extensive secondary legislation.

P Hurst, ‘The English System of Costs’ [2014] 25 EBLR 565, 585.

CPR 1.1(1): These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

CPR 44.3(2); CPR 44.3(5) identifies five factors relevant to proportionality; general discussion, Neil Andrews, ‘On Proportionate Costs’ (2013) ZZP Int 3-18 and (2014) 232 Revista de Processo, 393-409; J Sorabji, ‘Prospects for Proportionality: Jackson Implementation’ (2013) 32 CJQ 213.

CPR 44.13 to 44.16; PD (44), 12.4 to 12.7.

As defined at CPR 44.13(1).

CPR 44.16(1); PD (44), 12.4 to 12.7.

CPR 44.15.

s 44(4), Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (substituting s 58A(6) within the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990).

s 46(1), Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, adding a new Section 58C to the 1990 Act.

Article 3, Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013/689.

Articles 4 and 5, ibid.; Article 5(2), ibid., refers to: ‘(a) general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity; and (b) damages for pecuniary loss, other than future pecuniary loss.’

s 58AA(3)(a), Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (amended by s 45, Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012); Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013/609; CPR 44.18.

Reg 1(2), Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013/609.

s 58AA(3)(a), Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (amended by s 45, Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012).

CPR 3.12 to 3.18; PD (3E); V Ramsey, ‘Implementation of the Costs Reforms’ (2013) 32 CJQ 112, 118–119; noting Lord Neuberger MR, Lecture, May 29, 2012 (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/proportionate-costs-fifteenth-lecture-30052012.pdf).

CPR 3.12(1)(a)(b); or, CPR 3.12(1)(c), unless the claim is made by or behalf of a person under 18.

Annexed to PD (3F).

CPR 3.18.

CPR 52.3, 52.4.

Briggs IR (2015), 2.67 to 2.79; J Leabeater et al., Civil Appeals: Principle and Procedure (2nd edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2014), Section 2.3.

CPR 52.5(2) (effective, October 2016): ‘The [Lord Justice] considering the application on paper may direct that the application be determined at an oral hearing, and must so direct if the judge is of the opinion that the application cannot be fairly determined on paper without an oral hearing.’ S Sime, ‘Appeals after the Civil Courts Structure Review’ (2017) 36 CJQ 51–69.

RL Abel, The Legal Profession in England and Wales (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1988); RL Abel, English Lawyers: Between Market and State: The Politics of Professionalism (Oxford University Press, 2005); see also Bibliography, Section 1.1, for literature on professional and legal ethics.

Jackson FR (2010); on which AAS Zuckerman, ‘The Jackson Final Report on Costs—Plastering the Cracks to Shore up a Dysfunctional System’ (2010) 29 CJQ 263.

Accessible collectively at: (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/review-of-civil-litigation-costs/lectures); see also Jackson RCJ (2018).

Southwark LBC v Kofi-Adu [2006] EWCA Civ 281, [2006] HLR 33, at [148].

e.g., Sir Leonard Hoffmann, ‘Changing Perspectives on Civil Litigation’ (1993) 56 MLR 297.

Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct for relevant subject areas.

Neil Andrews, in A Pellegrini Grinover and R Calmon (eds), Direito Processual Comparado: XIII World Congress of Procedural Law (Editora Forense, Rio de Janeiro, 2007), 201–42.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lj-jackson-twelfth-lecture-implementation-programme-22032012.pdf.

Commencement is when the court enters the date on the claim form, CPR 7.2(2); but for limitation purposes, when the claim form was received in the court office: PD (7) 5.1; St Helens MBC v Barnes [2006] EWCA Civ 1372, [2007] CP Rep 7 (noted J Sorabji [2007] CJQ 166).

Brussels 1 Regulation (recast) (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on ‘jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters’; e.g., Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl (Case C-116/02) [2003] ECR I-14693.

Bibliography, Section 3.1, for literature on small claims.

An intermediate track between the fast track and the multi-track has been proposed: Jackson Fixed Costs (2017). Briggs FR (2016) contains recommendations for the creation of an electronic ‘on-line’ court for certain monetary claims under £25,000. On these recommendations, see cirticial comment in Civil Justice Quarterly (special issue on the Online Court proposals) (2017) 36 CJQ 1–126.

CPR 26.6(1)(2)(3); CPR 27.1.

CPR 26.6(4); generally, CPR 28.

100

CPR 29; CPR 26.6(6) states: ‘The multi-track is the normal track for any claim for which the small claims track or the fast track is not the normal track.’

101

PD (29), para 2.2.

102

cf. the small amount litigated in Bowerman v ABTA (1995) New LJ 1815, CA.

103

CPR 26.3; CPR 26.8; PD (26); WB (2017), para’s 26.3.1 ff; the Directions Questionnaires are on forms N180 (small claims) and N181 (fast track and multi-track).

104

CPR 26.8(1).

105

CPR 26.10; Maguire v Molin [2002] 4 All ER 325, CA.

106

Bibliography, Section 3.11.

107

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lj-jackson-lecture-13-it-society.pdf.

108

Ibid., at 4.7.

109

Bibliography, Section 3.5.

110

Briggs CMR (2013), 6.19.

111

J Langbein, ‘The Disappearance of Civil Trial in the United States’ (2012) 122 Yale LJ 522, 565-6.

112

‘Controlling the Costs of Disclosure’, at 2.2 (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/review-of-civil-litigation-costs/lectures/controlling-costs-disclosure-lj-jackson-lecture-24112011).

113

CPR 31.5.

114

Seminar, Cambridge civil procedure class, February 2016.

115

CPR 31.22.

116

CPR 32.2(3).

117

Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 3004 (QB), [2017] 1067 (Stewart J), at [52].

118

Wright v Michael Wright (Supplies) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 234, [2013] CP Rep 32, at [30] (see comments by Green J in the MacLennan case, next footnote, at [14]).

119

[2013] EWHC 4044 (QB), [2014] 1 WLR 2462, at [12].

120

The court assessor system (3.123) is confined to maritime collisions, patent disputes, and costs issues.

121

Bibliography, Section 3.8.

122

Abbey National Mortgages plc v Key Surveyors Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1534, 1542, CA (Sir Thomas Bingham MR; pre-CPR case concerning appointment of a court expert).

123

PD (35) at 11.1 to 11.4; V Ramsey, ‘Implementation of the Costs Reforms’ (2013) 32 CJQ 112, 117.

124

CPR 39.2(1); CPR 39.2(3) and PD (39A) 1.5 prescribe exceptions; the primary source is s 67, Senior Courts Act 1981; J Jaconelli, Open Justice (Oxford University Press, 2002); North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc (No 2) [2011] EWHC 910 (Ch), [2011] 1 WLR 2265 (Floyd J).

125

For a transnational trend, in this regard, see Rule 25, ALI/UNIDROIT (2006), 137 ff (on those Principles, 2.06–2.13).

126

Bibliography, Section 3.2.

CPR 52.3(1).

CPR 52.4(2).

PD (52).

CPR 52.11(2) & (4).

CPR 52.11(3).

See Chap. 6; see also Bibliography, Section 3.6.

133

Briggs IR (2015), 5.97.

134

Ibid., 3.53 to 3.56; 5.97 to 5.103; Chap. 10; 12.29 to 12.30

135

Ibid., 5.100.

136

HMCTS (Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service; executive agency of the Ministry of Justice).

137

Briggs IR (2015), 5.100.

138

Ibid., 5.101.

139

cf. Ritchie v Atkinson (1808) 10 East 295, 310; 103 ER 787, 792 (Grose J): ‘perfect justice will be done to both’.

140

HC Deb, XXIV, col 259, cited in Lord Neuberger ‘From Barretry, Maintenance and Champerty to Litigation Funding Harbour Litigation Funding First Annual Lecture’ (2013), at n 76 (https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-130508.pdf); and in CJ Whelan (ed), Small Claims Courts: a Comparative Study (Oxford University Press, 1990), 103.

141

Briggs IR (2015), 12.4.

142

Ibid., 2.9,

143

Ibid., 2.3.

144

Geoffrey C Hazard, American Civil Procedure (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1993); Stephen N Subrin and MYK Woo, Litigating in America (Aspen, New York, 2006); Oscar G Chase, ‘American “Exceptionalism” and Comparative Procedure’ (2002) 50 Amer J of Comp L 277–301; and for comparative reflections, J Walker and Oscar G Chase (eds), Common Law, Civil Law, and the Future of Categories (Lexis Nexis, Markham, Ontario, 2010).

145

On the latter, Bibliography, Section 5.

146

CPR 31.16 (3).

147

R Moorhead and P Hurst, Improving Access to Justice: Contingency Fees: A Study of their operation in the United States of America: A Research Paper informing the Review of Costs (November 2008), edited by Robert Musgrove (www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.uk/files/cjc-contingency-fees-report-11-11-08.pdf).

148

Andrews Arb and Contract (2016), 1.13 to 1.15; Neil Andrews, ‘La “Doppia Elica” della Giustizia Civile: I Legami tra Metodi Privati e Pubblici di Risoluzione delle Controversie’ in Rivista Trimetrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile (2010) 529–48; Andrews, ‘La combinación de la administración pública y privada de la justicia civil’ (2012) Revista de Derecho de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile 253–289; Andrews, ‘The Marriage of Public and Private Civil Justice’ (2011) 16 ZZP Int 1–26.

Titel: Introduction
verfasst von: Neil Andrews
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: The Three Paths of Justice
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74831-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-74832-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74832-0_1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner