Advantages + Disadvantages of Civil Court System

✅The case is overheard by a qualified judge

This is good because …

Judges are experienced lawyers and can deal with cases efficiently and fairly — explaining their reasoning

Evidence -

entry judicial positions require at least 5 years of legal experience

Developed point -

qualified judges ensure each side gets a fair trial respecting article 6 and ensuring public confidence

Counter -

this level of qualification means that the civil courts are very expensive

✅Judges provide a written judgement at the end of the trail

This is good because …

parties are able to see that the judge has considered their legal argument and have confidence that the matter has been dealt with appropriately

Evidence -

all cases end in written judgements

Developed point -

written judgements are open to appeal meaning mistakes can be identified and rectified on appeal

Counter -

despite Lord Woolf attempt to simplify the system, judgements are not always accessible + appeals are also very expensive

✅Civil court judgements are binding

This is good because …

once the decision has been made it is final and all parties must respect it

Evidence -

failure to comply with court orders can be resolved by the court itself using its powers

Developed point -

unlike most methods of ADR this grantees and end to the dispute and means parties can move on

Counter -

court orders may sometimes be undesirable to both parties and unlike ADR they are no longer in control of the solution

✅The civil court system provides open justice

This is good because …

Open justice increases public confidence in the courts as anyone can see justice being served

Evidence -

All courts, except family, generally allow members of the public/ press to observe

Developed point -

that fact that all people can see justice being served increases public confidence in the court system and prevents parties hiding disputes of public interest

Counter -

the public nature of some trails means that some parties may be put off utilising the courts - preferring to use other methods such as ADR

❌The loser pays the winners costs which can be very high

This is a limitation because …

can lead to some people not pursuing cases as their concerned about costs

Evidence -

The high court, especially, has very high costs in addition to lawyer costs

Developed Point -

This means some parties, despite having good cases, may chose not to pursue them in court due to being worried about costs

Counter -

This could also prevent futile (useless/ ineffective) cases coming to court as there’s no possibility of a win - it may also prevent parties from offering futile defences

❌No win, No fee arrangements are misleading

This is a limitation because …

It can lead to people facing unexpected legal bills and difficulties in finding representation

Evidence -

Where a party looses unless they gain after the event insurance, the party is likely to be liable for the other sides costs

Developed point -

The fact that often insurance needs to be obtained before taking the claim forward undermine the ‘No fee’ element of these claims - the less likely a claim is to be successful the more expensive the insurance premium will be

Counter -

The fact that insurance becomes more expensive limits the potential for frivolous lawyers (lacking seriousness)

❌Other than in small claims it is difficult to bring a case without a lawyer

This is a limitation because …

The use of lawyers increases costs for all parties

Evidence -

For most claims complex civil procedure rules most be followed as these will not be known or understood by lay people

Developed Point -

This can lead to some parties not being able to go to court, moreover litigants in person face their claims being dismissed due to failing to follow the rules

Counter -

The higher value claims are more complex and the use of lawyers ensures faster and more efficient justice - in the long run this reduces costs

❌The use of lawyers causes more confrontation between parties

This is a limitation because …

this can put a strain on business relationships

Evidence -

the adversarial nature of the court process means that both parties may start to look to ‘win’ rather than simply solving a dispute

Developed Point -

Especially in business cases this is not economically beneficial - particularly if companies stop working with each other which may increase their costs and lead to inflation as they try to cover their losses

Counter -

Following Lord Woolf’s civil procedure rules the parties would’ve already attempted ADR which has failed - this means that going to court may be the final realistic option