Describe the allocation of trial processes of fast track and multi-track cases.

Assess the extent to which

the reforms proposed by lord woolf in 1996 have been achieved. (25)

(May june 11 2021)

Brain storming:

 Start with what was wrong with the reforms before woolf reforms (briefly)
 What were the woolf reforms and what was its overriding objectives
 Civil procedure rules

(These 3 points should be briefed in the first paragraph)

 Tell about fast track cases (county court, the criticism by zander and jacksons reforms)
 Multi track cases ( high court, extensive case management)
 Lord woolf reforms, how they have improved
o Zander’s criticism

Ans: There was an immense amount of criticism received by the civil justice system, as they were more
costly, and complex and there were delays in the procedure itself. Moreover, as it was an adversarial
system, it encouraged technical maneuvering rather than cooperation. Hence due to this civil justice
review was set up and after that lord Woolf reforms were introduced. Rule 1.1 of the civil procedure
rules stated that the overriding objective of the Woolf reforms is to enable the court to deal with cases
justly and at proportionate costs. In the next few paragraphs, we will evaluate multi track and fast track
cases with Lord Woolf’s reforms.

Fast track claim are dealt by the county court, and these are used for disputes of £10000 to 25000,
before the woolf reforms the statistics showed for the year that for cases in county court the average
wait was 85 weeks from the issue of claims to the hearing in the court. Due to which it was expensive
and moreover this will naturally have a psychological burden on the people. Hence, fast track idea was
brought in which once a case is defended, the district judge has to send out the allocation questionnaire
and after that it will be decided if the case is suitable for fast track. Upon the allocation to the fast track,
the court will set a strict timetable for the pretrial matters, as a result this would save costs and prevent
both parties from wasting their time. As soon as the court hearing starts, the typical timetable states
that the aim is to have the case heard in 30 weeks, and this lessens the delays due to which it will lessen
the financial burden and intolerable psychological burden on accident victims. However, in 2014 a
report was conducted which stated that the wait was 56 weeks, although it was improved from the pre
woolf reforms time but as the name says “fast track”, this is a long time. Under this track the maximum
length of the trial is normally one day, Zandar said that conducting a trial in one day might give the
litigants the feeling that “one day” isn’t enough and it is inadequate. Moreover there are limited experts
as oral evidence is limited to one expert per party in relation and expert evidence will be limited to two
expert fields. Fixed costs for fast tracks have been introduced to keep the bills down. Rupert Jackson in
2009 published a report in which he stated that fixed costs should be fixed in all types of claims, this will
have many advantages, as firstly it will avoid the further process of costs assessment or disputes over
recoverable costs, which can in themselves generate further expense.

Multi track cases are dealt with county court but it could be sent to high court, if claim is over £100,000.
Multi track cases deal with actions with a value higher than £25000, upon allocation for the multi-track
the court gives direction for the management of the case and a time table is set for the next following
steps. For heavier claims, the court fixes a case management conference or a pretrial, the difference
between fast and multi-track is the fact in this the court will not automatically set a trial date they will fix
it as soon as it is practicable to do so. It is also possible to ask the parties to try an alternative method of
dispute resolutions so that costs could be saved.

Lord Woolf reforms has helped in changing the whole environment of litigation, as now judges are
taking more active roles in managing cases. The reforms intended to focus on reduction in cost and
delay, however cost is still a big question. This dispute is actually understandable, because of the fact
that achieving swiftness in dealing cases will make it impossible to keep the costs low. The limitation
period which was set for 6 years was considered to be problematic, as in ablet v devon it was stated that
it was the nature of abuse that it creates shame, so for young children who have suffered abuse will
have difficulty in bringing their case, as they wouldn’t realize it until a later stage in their life. However,
in A v hoare the court provided the woman justice who was raped in 1970s by a serial rapist, to bring
forward a case against him in 2004. Zandar felt that these reforms were flawed, as he said that the
cause of delay wasn’t the adversarial system which was basically pointed out by lord Woolf. He referred
to a research in 1994, in which causes of delay was due to seven factors, out of the seven, the main
were the lawyers and the external factors such as the difficulty of getting expert’s reports. However, if
Lord Woolf’s study was flawed then it wouldn’t have solved the problems. In a report of the “judicial
statistics” in the county court has reduced from issue to trial, from 640 days to 500 in 2000-2001.

However, it can be concluded even though the reforms have its flaws, they have been effective and
some of the clauses have been achieved. The main problem is the cost, and for that adr should be
promoted as said in Rupert Jackson’s report. It can also be concluded that the ADR are underused, and
the government should promote that by starting a serious campaign to ensure that all the lawyers and
everyone is aware of ADR and how it works and what benefits it brings. If effective management is
actually used then perhaps it will reduce more costs, but for that judges and lawyers should receive
training for effective cost budgeting.