Background

Disputes which relate to matters or transactions in England and Wales or English or Welsh land or which have a connection with England and Wales are heard by English Courts. London has a strong reputation as an international commercial centre. Parties to international contracts often agree that the English Courts decide disputes, even though there is no particular connection with England.

Because of their common heritage, the Irish and English legal systems and Court procedures have been broadly similar.  However, a fundamental change in court procedures and practice was undertaken in England and Wales when the so called “Wolfe Reforms” were implemented. These 1999 reforms implemented the “Access to Justice” Report which was chaired by Lord Wolfe.

The Wolfe Report concluded that the pre-existing litigation system in England and Wales at that time was too expensive, too slow and incomprehensible to the public.  The simplest case could take years to come to trial and the costs would often exceed the amount the dispute.  The system was too adversarial (i.e. conflict driven) and did not necessarily operate in the interests of justice as a whole.

The Woolf Reforms

 The England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules prescribe the practices and procedures for the hearing and determination of claims and dispute in England and Welsh Courts. The overriding purposes of the new Civil Procedure Rules are to ensure that the parties are dealt with on an equal footing, to save expense, to ensure that  cases are dealt with fairly and quickly and to allocate the appropriate share of the Court’s resources to the particular circumstances.  Cases are to be dealt in a way that is proportionate to the amount of money involved, their importance, complexity and the  financial position of the parties.

The most significant reform was to transfer the control of litigation from the parties to the Court.  The Court and Court Offices now decides the progress of cases by making directions, setting timetables and ensuring that they were complied with.

Active management by the Court includes, encouraging the parties to co-operate, identifying details of what is disputed and not disputed at an early stage and dealing with other issues summarily and less formally.  It includes encouraging parties to use alternative dispute mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration and if appropriate, helping and facilitating settlement.

It also involves fixing timetables and controlling progress, measuring benefits against costs, dealing with as many different issues on the one occasion as possible, dealing with cases without the need for a formal hearing or trial, making use of technology and giving directions to ensure the case proceeds.

The Civil Procedure Rules have discouraged the use of experts.  Parties are free to obtain such expert evidence as they wish but the Court will limit the extent to which they can be used.  The Court can limit the number of experts in its pre-trial management conferences and can order that a single joint expert be used. They can restrict expert evidence to written evidence rather than oral evidence.

The Court can disallow the cost of evidence which it decides is excessive.  Generally, where experts are likely to have the same opinion, a joint expert is appropriate.  Where there are a range of views, the Court will usually take the view that it serves the overriding objective to achieve justice to allow each party to offer its own evidence.

 

Important Notice; see the Terms of Use and Disclaimer below

Legal Guide Limited, UK Law (An Irish Overview), and Paul McMahon have no liability arising from reliance on anything contained in this article or on this website

Share this article:

Leave a Reply