Court and the legal profession

This topic contains information that applies to the civil courts generally, such as links to court guides published by the individual courts and details of fees charged in the civil courts.

For detail of the structure and hierarchy of civil courts in England and Wales, see: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary—Structure of Courts and Tribunals System.

Online dispute resolution and the online court

Lord Justice Briggs, in his Final Report on the Civil Courts Structure Review, which was published on 27 July 2016, recommended the creation of an online court for the resolution of certain disputes. Since that report, there has been much discussion among the judiciary and elsewhere of the concept of online dispute resolution (ODR) and the need for digitisation of the dispute resolution process for civil proceedings in England and Wales.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service embarked on a significant reform programme for the justice system, which included the introduction of schemes to test online court environments.

The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 also provided for Online Procedure Rules (OPR) to govern practice and procedure of online civil proceedings, and for the introduction

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents