Reforms

Civil procedure before the 1999 reforms

Before the Woolf reforms in April 1999, there were two separate sets of civil procedure, depending on where the case commenced. Cases in the High Court used the ‘White Book’ and cases in the county court used the ‘Green Book’ (these are the rules of civil procedure and practice and had either a white cover or a green cover).

There were also different procedures for commencing a case. A case in the county court was started with a summons, but a case in the High Court was started with a writ. The system could be confusing for plaintiffs because of the differing rules of procedure and evidence.

Lord Woolf was tasked with reforming the civil justice system. This culminated in ‘Access to Justice: Final Report’, which was published in 1996 and soon became known as the Woolf Report. He concluded that the civil justice system of the time had some key flaws:

› Expensive: his report found that costs often exceeded the amount in dispute.

› Delays: cases took an average of three to five years to reach the trial stage.

› Complex: with differing procedures for the county and High courts, litigants found the system complex. As a result, more lawyers would be hired, increasing costs for plaintiffs.

› Adversarial: there was an emphasis on exploiting the system rather than cooperation between parties.

› Unjust: there was an imbalance of power between the wealthy represented party and the underrepresented party. This was a particular problem with out-of-court settlements, with one party under pressure to settle more than the other.

› Emphasis on oral evidence: most evidence did not need to be presented orally and could have been pre-assessed by the judge. This made trials slow and inefficient and led to an increase in costs, with expert witnesses charging high fees.

As a result of the findings of the Woolf Report, the main recommendations were put into effect in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which came into force in April 1999.They represent one of the biggest reforms of the civil justice system, with some people questioning whether such wide reforms were needed.

Rule 1.1(2) states: Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable

(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

(b) saving expense;

(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

(i) to the amount of money involved; (ii) to the importance of the case; (iii) to the complexity of the issues; and (iv) to the financial position of each party;

(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and

(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and

(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders