Views from the South East

'The push towards alternative dispute resolution means that those cases coming to trial involve increasingly complicated issues of fact and law'

There are fundamental changes afoot in Essex; an increased use of mediation services is one, the rising numbers of litigants in person is another, and, lastly, the focusing of court time on public law Children Act cases.

All small claims and private law Children Act cases are actively encouraged towards alternative dispute resolution by the Essex courts. Matters that are capable of settling (or appear capable of settling) find themselves outside of the court arena '“ often to good effect for the parties and the courts listings. In response to the changing demands, many members of the local Bar are adding mediation qualifications to their services. In many respects this is a natural extension of the negotiation work undertaken in civil and matrimonial cases (thinking particularly of the FDR hearings). For solicitors this provides a helpful and independent resource for clients away from the stressful environment of the court.

The push towards alternative dispute resolution means that those cases coming to trial involve increasingly complicated issues of fact and law. Bundles are delivered in multiple lever arch files; trials are listed in days. But more trials are effective, the prospect of settling having been examined earlier in the process.

The rise of the litigant in person is hard to miss and easy to understand. As a consequence of costs and public funding in particular, we often find ourselves working with parties acting on their own behalf. While there are no statistics recording the impact of this trend, anecdotal evidence is clear that court hearings are extended to accommodate the litigant in person.

There is a deliberate and necessary prioritisation of public law Children Act cases in Chelmsford. The county court is the busiest care centre outside of London, and, even with seven qualified circuit and district judges, the court struggles to meet the increasingly tight targets for completing care cases. It is helpful that there is greater coordination between court centres so that, for example, a Chelmsford case might be heard in Cambridge County Court.

The increasing complexity of trials, the greater appearances by litigants in person and the focus on public law Children Act cases would suggest longer delays to final hearings, but this is not the case. Perhaps primarily because of ADR, listing times are improving in Essex.

Andrew Bailey is a barrister at Trinity Chambers, Chelmsford(www.trinitychambers.com)

'There is the obvious need to avoid delay and costs, the growing recognition of and drive towards a more mediation-based culture, and therefore trying to get parties to recognise court should be a remedy of last resort'

In both private children's cases and ancillary relief cases there is an increasing number of people representing themselves, which of course is interesting as this is before any implementation of the legal aid cuts '“ but is presumably a result of the current economic climate.

Anecdotally, I think there is a significant rise in the number of cases where both parties are in person rather than at least one having a lawyer '“ these put the greatest strain on the courts time and resources, particularly in sorting out their finances.

Being just one individual in the field, it is hard to pass comment on case volumes. But my sense is that there has been a slight reduction in the number of finances cases and possibly private law children's cases as well.

However, there is unlikely to be an overall reduction of court sitting days as those cases that do come before the court (for reasons of complexity or litigants in person) tend to off-set the reduced number.

In the courts I attend I think (quite properly) there is a tendency for the judiciary to be more robust than in the past: there is the obvious need to avoid delay and costs, the growing recognition of and drive towards a more mediation-based culture, and therefore trying to get parties to recognise court should be a remedy of last resort (particularly where children are concerned).

In care cases there is undoubtedly an exponential rise in the number of proceedings issued both from my experience and from talking to different local authority solicitors and children's guardians. The one feature that is noticeable about the vast majority of those cases are that the issues are of ever-increasing complexity '“ whether that be multiple issues such as domestic violence, alcohol, drugs and serious neglect or non-accidental injuries, or cases with an international element.

In relation to all the areas I work in, however, I believe it has always been the case that there have been different pressures on the 'system', and by that I mean courts, judges, practitioners and those professionals working within it, as well as those members of the public having to have recourse to it.

By and large everyone within it ensures that cases progress as smoothly as they can, however my fear is that for a long time it has been a significant amount of goodwill that has oiled the wheels so to speak '“ with the myriad of cuts it is not difficult to foresee a time when those same people come to see their goodwill as being taken for granted (if not already).

Nigel Sleight is a barrister at Regency Chambers, Peterborough (www.regencychambers.law.co.uk)