Factors influencing court users’ decisions to bring cases to court

26 Jun 2023|60 Seconds|Add your comment

This report presents the findings from this research and provides up-to-date evidence on users' decisions to seek redress through courts, and what role costs, including court fees, played in these decisions

The Ministry of Justice commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct a qualitative research study to explore the attitudes, knowledge and experiences of individuals and small to medium size enterprises (SMEs) which have brought cases to the civil and family courts. A behaviour-research approach was adopted, using the ‘COM-B model’ of behaviour change.

Factors influencing users’ decisions to bring cases to the civil and family courts

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Factors influencing users’ decisions to bring cases to the civil and family courts

Comments

Latest Articles

Why AI governance for lawyers needs judgement, not rules

Static AI policies fail legal teams; cultivating professional judgement is what actually reduces risk while capturing AI's competitive advantage

A fairer end? Navigating the new cohabitation proposals

The Ministry of Justice's landmark consultation promises vital baseline protections, but creates a complex, highly contested landscape for family practitioners

High Court rules on Ford Dieselgate claims

The High Court has allowed amendments to the Dieselgate claims against Ford, enhancing consumer litigation rights

Re Beth [2026] EWFC 156 (B): Family Court identifies perpetrator of non-accidental injuries in infant fact-finding proceedings

HHJ Case finds Intervenor caused femoral fracture and bruising to infant in sole care; threshold met against mother.

The Local Authority v The Mother [2026] EWFC 166 (B): Resolutions assessment refused and special guardianship order made in non-accidental injury proceedings

HHJ Hesford refuses Resolutions assessment and makes SGO for paternal grandparents in NAI care proceedings.

PSA v General Dental Council and Rahman: six-month suspension quashed in dentist sexual misconduct appeal

Sweeting J allows PSA appeal after finding Committee failed to evaluate repeated sexual misconduct holistically.

Musst Holdings v Astra Asset Management: ATE premiums and litigation funding fees not recoverable as damages

Leech J dismisses novel claim to recover ATE premiums and litigation funding fees as damages.

A1 v Home Secretary: Court of Appeal allows revocation appeal in terrorism refugee status case

Singh LJ finds logical inconsistency in FTT's section 72 danger assessment; case remitted for redetermination.

High Court refuses Tate brothers permission for judicial review over complainants' identity disclosure

Chamberlain J finds neither irrationality nor Article 6 breach arguable in extradition disclosure challenge.

Wild Justice v Natural England: High Court refuses advisory declaration in badger cull licensing challenge

High Court rejects environmental NGOs' bid for hypothetical guidance on badger cull licensing irrelevancies.

High Court makes declaration of parentage against former BATUK soldier in Re YZ DNA case

DNA evidence proving 99.9999999% paternity probability defeats respondent's challenge to chain of evidence.

R (EXR) v Home Secretary: High Court rules reasonableness governs age assessments for UK-France Treaty removals

High Court rules reasonableness standard governs SSHD age decisions for UK-France Treaty removals.

Sentencing guidelines updated after consultation

The Sentencing Council has announced amendments to sentencing guidelines following an annual consultation that received 76 responses, with changes coming into effect on 13 July...

SJ Interview: Chris Spelman

Chris Spelman is a partner in DWF's London dispute resolution team, specialising in financial services litigation and investigations, whistleblowing matters, and class action, securities and...

When the rules can't keep up

From Westminster to the courts, the rules are being written faster than they can settle