Friday, February 16, 2007
Legal Reform Needed
The Times tells us of a garden wall dispute, which after having been taken to the law and the Court of Appeal has cost the loser some £250,000.00p in costs.
The whole this is of course simply ridiculous, but it demonstrates severe deficiencies with our legal and judicial systems. In the first instance, the dispute went to the County Court, which is quite probably an appropriate place for deciding such matters. The problem of course arises when one side doesn't accept the verdict and wishes to appeal, as the county court which is so suitable for the likes of small claims etc has it's appeal route is through the other courts of our legal system and hence this case was heard by the Court Of Appeal.
The Court Of Appeal was pretty brutal in dismissing the appeal, but that could well be because it had no merit, but if it had no merit, then surely if the parties were both advised, it should never have got there? Equally importantly, it seems strange that the country court procedure for small and minor claims, designed to be cheap and relatively quick, has no corresponding appeals procedure, this claim has taken five years.
I think justice would be best served especially in small cases such as these if there were some kind of summary procedure with a cut-off that would automatically apply. In principle something along the lines that if the costs of both parties (calculated with reference to standard market rates) looked likely to exceed 50% of the value of the claim then it should be barred from proceeding further. Of course any claim should be allowed one judgement, but after that there should be limits, there's just no point in this degree of litigation happening. The procedure itself could change with the addition of a small claims appeals procedure, that could perhaps allow a small claims judge to request a reference from a higher court if they wanted a matter of law clarifying, but other than that to keep the matters outside the ambit of the far more expensive litigation.
Most cases would of course only be allowed one hearing, but that would at least be an end to the matter, and in small claims cases (by there very nature) even if you lose, you are subjected more to inconvenience as opposed to a major issue. Take this wall, what did it matter that the brickwork extended, by 2 or three courses above a conservatory? If you lose such a case, even if you're in the right, with no appeal, you'll just accept it and move on. Raise the height of your conservatory if it bothers you that much, it'll be much cheaper.
Imagine the position of the losing party, if he couldn't stand the wall so much, he could have sold and added £250,000.00p plus to his capital and purchased a far superior property. Would not his condition be far happier than that in which he finds himself today?
The whole this is of course simply ridiculous, but it demonstrates severe deficiencies with our legal and judicial systems. In the first instance, the dispute went to the County Court, which is quite probably an appropriate place for deciding such matters. The problem of course arises when one side doesn't accept the verdict and wishes to appeal, as the county court which is so suitable for the likes of small claims etc has it's appeal route is through the other courts of our legal system and hence this case was heard by the Court Of Appeal.
The Court Of Appeal was pretty brutal in dismissing the appeal, but that could well be because it had no merit, but if it had no merit, then surely if the parties were both advised, it should never have got there? Equally importantly, it seems strange that the country court procedure for small and minor claims, designed to be cheap and relatively quick, has no corresponding appeals procedure, this claim has taken five years.
I think justice would be best served especially in small cases such as these if there were some kind of summary procedure with a cut-off that would automatically apply. In principle something along the lines that if the costs of both parties (calculated with reference to standard market rates) looked likely to exceed 50% of the value of the claim then it should be barred from proceeding further. Of course any claim should be allowed one judgement, but after that there should be limits, there's just no point in this degree of litigation happening. The procedure itself could change with the addition of a small claims appeals procedure, that could perhaps allow a small claims judge to request a reference from a higher court if they wanted a matter of law clarifying, but other than that to keep the matters outside the ambit of the far more expensive litigation.
Most cases would of course only be allowed one hearing, but that would at least be an end to the matter, and in small claims cases (by there very nature) even if you lose, you are subjected more to inconvenience as opposed to a major issue. Take this wall, what did it matter that the brickwork extended, by 2 or three courses above a conservatory? If you lose such a case, even if you're in the right, with no appeal, you'll just accept it and move on. Raise the height of your conservatory if it bothers you that much, it'll be much cheaper.
Imagine the position of the losing party, if he couldn't stand the wall so much, he could have sold and added £250,000.00p plus to his capital and purchased a far superior property. Would not his condition be far happier than that in which he finds himself today?
Labels: justice, legal system
