How digital reform could rescue the county courts

The county court is in crisis and people cannot access services. It is recognised by government  that there is a need to enable the civil court system to meet the demands of modern society. The situation is exemplified by the data. MoJ statistics show that because of delays and backlogs it still takes most of a year between making a claim to getting to a court hearing. 

Digital technology is being deployed at a slow pace to supplement or replace court processes. The advantages of this must be carefully balanced alongside ethical considerations, transparency, accuracy and most importantly, protection for vulnerable court users. I argue that within these parameters it is important to think as creatively as possible about how we develop routes to help people resolve their disputes and access support and assistance to do so. 

There is much political and judicial support for the idea of streamlining justice and digitalising court procedures, especially to increase access to justice in low value cases. This was also the subject of our recent report, earlier this year, for the Civil Justice Council on digital disadvantage. We found that it is not only accessibility of digital tools that is at issue but also it is an understanding of how justice itself works that perplexes most people wanting to bring a small claim.

In the private sector, innovative systems such as Garfield AI, the first AI firm to be authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), demonstrates how to think creatively about pre-action help and support for litigants. For low value cases and small claims, services such as online mediation, or automated forms and other forms of self-help can help people to achieve resolution before their case gets in front of a judge. 

We should be open to greater levels of innovation and, with appropriate safeguards, be prepared to implement new ideas that enable those with a low value claim who cannot afford any sort of legal help access the legal system. There are international examples of small changes with the possibility of making a large difference. For example, from November 2025 individuals who represent themselves before the Singapore Small Claims Tribunal will be able to use an AI tool to help summarise the arguments being put forward in their case and help them to better prepare for trial. The focus is on providing information rather than advice. 

The Singapore Judiciary has a longstanding formal relationship with Harvey.AI to explore how generative AI can increase access to justice. Earlier this year a translation tool was introduced which litigants could easily access from a QR code embedded in court documents to help them to understand the paperwork and documents required for their case. The AI tools come with precautions and warnings around accuracy which the user must consent to before accessing.