A user's perspective on 'our crumbling courts

In SJ159/15, my colleague Tom Holbrook wrote of
the courts being stretched to their limits and wondered
if that would change.

I had recently had cause
to consider this and reflect
upon what has been a year
of challenge for the courts,
their staff, and users.

I received a costs budget
from a co-part 20 defendant. This was puzzling. It turned
out that an adjourned CCMC had been re-listed and I hadn't received the order.

That, in itself, is not unusual. These things happen from time to time, but I thought I had better check the position with the court. I was quite surprised, however, to discover that the court staff wouldn't speak to me.

It transpired that I was not
on their records as representing any party to the litigation.
This was peculiar as I had filed
a defence to the part 20 claim and I had, personally, attended the previous CCMC.

After a letter and many
phone calls, it emerged that
the court had mistakenly put the claimant's representatives down as acting for both the
part 20 claimant and my client (shouldn't alarm bells have
been ringing then?) but anyway, problem solved, or so I thought.

I then enquired about the hearing and was advised
that it had been vacated by consent. I found this a little
odd considering what had prompted me to contact the court in the first place was receiving a revised budget.
I put it to the court that perhaps that was a mistake. I was aware the main action had resolved, but this was a CCMC for the
part 20 action.

I then discovered that the consent order filed settling the main action had caused the judge to order the trial date be vacated. As a trial had not yet been listed in the main action, the court officers had removed the only hearing date on their system, which was the forthcoming part 20 CCMC.

roblem solved?
All was eventually solved.
I received an order from the court confirming that I was, indeed, representing my client, and an order telling us there was now no court time available
for the CCMC but a new date was given, at only four weeks after the previous one, which nowadays does not seem that long to wait (my experience
had been delays of nine months or more waiting for CCMCs dependent upon which court you are in).

My query meant the part 20 claimant and other part 20 defendant didn't turn up to court for a hearing that wasn't listed, and, perhaps, the court might reimburse my client for the time incurred in resolving the mess (or is that wishful thinking?).

Cutting justice
In June, it was announced court staff were to be decreased by 400. The day after the announcement we were told of the intention to close 91 'surplus' courts. I have to ask whether the staff in the courts affected form part of the 400 or would be in addition to them. Unfortunately, I suspect the latter.

So, fewer courts, and
fewer staff to assist court
users (including an increasing number of litigants in person, but that's a whole other topic) and administer justice.

Perhaps there is a solution
to the problem. In March, the court fees were increased - not just a little, but a lot - and there are further increases proposed for next year. The consultation for this fee hike ended on
15 September, before written submissions were due to the Justice Select Committee investigating the impact of
the fees on access to justice. Parties may well be priced
out of using the courts at all.

It would appear that if we thought the courts were stretched to their limits in 2014, we were mistaken. Over the coming year we might really find just where those limits are.

Jacqui Smoker is a solicitor at Kennedys @KennedysLaw www.kennedyslaw.com