Civil justice system is a peacefull way to resolve disputes and enforce the basic human rights within

society. This system easily eradicate the disputes between the private parties. Due to its dispute
resolving function it benefits citizen by providing peace and a good environment to do business. Due to
this it facilitate economic activities and support social order. The civil justice system plays a truly
essential role in maintaining the rule of law. It provide a framework for enforcing your rights. Question
arises that how civil justice system enforce the social order? Answer to it by influencing and publicity
through media. Publicity also serve as a trail for judges. Discssing about civil justice system there are also
many problems related to it were later addressed by Lord Woolf and Lord Jackson. The main concern
about civil justice system is its cost delay and complexties. Woolf reforms failed to overcome the cost
problem then later on LASPO was introduced by the government to cut the cost of civil justice system.

Let us first discuss the working of civil justice system and how this body works. This whole system works
under 6 main points. Pre Action protocols, choosing the appropriate country court, issue of proceeding,
recording evidence, trail stage and decisions and award of remedy or compensations. There is also a
good practice done in civil justice system which is out of court settlement which allow both the parties
to settle their problem outside the court. This process is called litigation where both parties agrees on
settlement without involving the court. This process is encouraged by the court because firstly it save
the time of the court and itis more cheaper way to settle an issue.

Now let us discuss about challenges that are faced by civil justice system and how they tried to
overcome those challenges. The main 3 challenges to this system is cost, delay and complexities. Most
of the measures have been primarily focused on Aid for trails .Slow and expensive procedure affect civil
justice the most. Time and cost is involved while in collecting the evidence and preparing the case for
the trail. To avoid these complications lord Woolf proposed some reforms. Lord Woolf made an interim
report in June in 1995 to accompany new civil procedure rules. According to him all these problems
were linked. His aim was to reduce the load on court and encourage the litigation process, limiting the
cost for litigants, to limit the litigation and manage case load to reduce the complexity. FOR this the
suggested some major changing .To avoid complexity he tried to simplify CPR, he suggested to remove
latin, and introduced pre action protocols and practice direction were added to assit the litigants. To
avoid delay he introduced 3 traces small traces, fast track, multitrack. These classification were based on
money involved. For a case with a claim value not exceeding 10,000 pounds this is the most inform
procedure, Fast track for case with a claim value of 10,000 to 25,000 pound. The trail last for no longer
one day, the multitrack involved money more than 25,000 pounds. These are the most complex and
high-value cases.

Talking about negative points of Woolf these reforms failed to cut the cost in civil justice system. Instead
of it they introduced pre action protocols. These pre action protocols causes increase in cost. There is
immunse pressure on parties to enter settlement once the case begin. After LORD Woolf, lord Jackson
proposed reforms. He concluded that wolf reforms indirectly increased the cost and also increased the
work load by engaging the lawyers. Lord Jackson emphasized on the concept of standardized pre
decided fee. The addition of extra rules also help in increasing complexities

In order to have access to justice there should be awareness of rights and procedure. Later, in order to
uphold to enforce and uphold Rule of law the government has been affording the legal fee on behalf of
common citizen. Since 1950 legal aid was available for both criminal law and civil law. High cost lead to
civil justice reforms and government enacted the most controversial act of LASPO 2012.
According to Jackson reports legal aid was abolished in civil law cases and they made sure that people to
deal with the matter themselves. Aid in criminal cases were still available. This act was harshly criticized
on the floor of house of common standing committee. Laspo is criticized it because it is considered as an
act which was passed having lack of research. Due to LASPO civil justice system has seen underspending,
lack of awareness for eligible class, increase in litigation in person, downsizing of advice center. The civil
justice review of 1988 criticized the CJS and commented that the CJS is causing stress, anxiety and
financial handshape to ordinary people. The review also stipulated that the current CJS causes delay in
litigation and it also induces the weaken panty to accept unfair settlement, The recommendations made
by the CJS were largely rejected. But the govt. partially incremented the recommendations and enacted
CLSA 1990 ( Courts and legal services act) but the condition remained largely unchanged.

Civil justice system play a vital role in a society for maintaining the rule of law and solving the disputes in
a society. The objectives of civil justice system are faster, inexpensive, simple and effective to
figure out the dispute with in a society . It is a way to solve dispute between the citizens or
organization, and it always deal with the private right between citize. The fundamental
objectives of civil justice system are faster, inexpensive, simple and effective to figure out
the dispute with in a society. LASPO cut the legal aid in civil system and due to lack of
awareness the eligible persons are not availing the legal aid. Government have to endorse and
publicize this legal aid so even eligible person can avail the legal aid.
Separation of power is the most important and main central concept in our modern world constitution
which underpins the most of the Western constitution. According to this power of the state should be
divided between principle organ of state so no organ of state could dominate on each other and could
have effectively check and balance between them. According to this theory every organ has its own
define spectrum in which he have to work and no organ in allowed to interfere in the work of other
organ. This concept gain popularity after the writing of French philosopher Montesquieu and Aristotle
which we will discuss later. This concept has now basically has become a central concept in modern
constitutions because it prevents from tyranny and abuse of power. Due to this state powers are divided
around three branches 1 Executive (Government) 2 legislature (Parliament) 3 judiciary. Lord Acton
beautifully described this concept by saying that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupt
absolutely.” The idea is that if power is allocated to the most appropriate institution then they will
exercise their powers effectively. Under Human Rights Act (“HRA”) 1998, it is the duty of the judges to
interpret primary and secondary legislation. S. 3 guides that if a situation requires interpretation of a
legislation, courts will favor the convention rights and not the intention of the parliament. Under S. 3,
judges can reinterpret statutory provision to make it compatible with convention rights

The concept of separation of power is used to avoid tyranny and abuse of power within society. To
understand the concept of separation of power this concept is divided into two theories. Strict theory
and partial theory. Strict theory states that one organ should not interfere or control the other organ
and organ should not exercise the power of other organ where as partial theory emphasis that three
organ of states should be sufficiently separated to avoid tyranny and primarily function of each of organ
should be allocated in order to achieve efficiency and avoid tyranny and abuse of power. Most of the
Western philosopher emphasis on an idea that complete separation of power is not possible even
practically. Complete separation of power will lead towards constitutional deadlock. So most
appropriate idea is balancing of power and we should focus on it. Now question arises how this concept
plays important role for our state. There are some philosophers who tried to justify this question Bolling
Brook said to protect state and liberty within state there should an equilibrium between three organ
of state. The main problem that this concept deal with is preservation of liberty, effectively check and
balance between the organ of the state, efficiency. Now a question arises what if state doesn’t follow
this concept? Then? If it is done and concept of separation of power is ignored there will be absolute
anarchy within the state and there will be a deadlock with in organ which will effect liberty within state.
If institution interfere in the work of other whole system of state will be distributed. Aristotle first
discovered that there are three organs First deliberates which discuss everything of common interest
and second are officials and third are official judicial elements. According to John locker if all the organ
of the state is handed over to the to a person there will be no stability in the environment. There is a
famous commentary which states that the close relationship between executive and legislative
represents the efficient secret of British constitution

The idea of separation of power also demand good relationships with other organ of state. Lets discuss
some relation of organ Firstly Judiciary and executive. Because Judiciary is independent so there is
strong separation of power between both organs of state. Because they can decide freely and have no
influence of executive body on them they both have no influence on them. In British constitution no one
is more independent then Judiciary body. Before CRA house of lord had great influence on 3 of the
organ. This was openly against the concept of separation of power so then CRA 2005 curtailed the
powers of lord chancellor. By constitutional conventions judges must not play an role in politics and
judges should not criticised by the executive body on their decision. Next executive and legislative body.
There is no doubt that executive dominate the legislative body. Before it house of lord had powers to
veto the act of Parliament but it was taken back by passing act of Parliament.

Human Right Act (HRA) is a constitutional statute that give effect to the right given in ECHR.HRA has
changed the whole philosophy of civil rights within UK. These are directly enforceable legal rights to
privacy, freedom of expression, family rights etc. HRA is the act of UK parliament which had received the
royal accent in 9 November 1998 and came into force of 1 of Oct. The main objective of HRA was to
bring rights of ECHR under UK courts and to achieve the respect of human rights under the public
authorities. The convention rights were described as RIGHTS BROUGHT HOME by the Labour party’s
white paper while introducing the human rights bill. Because UK is a dualistic state they have to pass an
act in order to include the international law in domestic UK body, that’s why HRA was passed by the
parliament to give effect to ECHR. UK took a lot of time to include HRA in its domestic body because of
EU. Previously EU had bounded UK parliament and was danger to the parliamentary sovereignty. HRA
was passed by the UK parliament because it is least danger to the parliamentary sovereignty. This essay
will discuss about the impact of section 3 and section 4 of the HRA in relation to the interpretation of
primary legislation

Section 3 and 4 are considered as the most important role in making judiciary more powerful. Both the
section had increased the power of court as whole. Section 3 impose the interpretation duty on court
where as section 4 give power to court to declare DOI. These are the section that give extra powers to
the court. Due to section 3 of HRA judges are sometimes tested how much innovative they are while
interpretation an act and achieving compatibility between both domestic law and convention rights.
Section 4 of HRA is an additional power of court because it is capable of giving rise to dialogue between
3 organs of the state

Both the concept of separation of power and HRA act has a great influence on UK constitution. HRA give
addition power to judges to interpret the act on a broader side to attain compatibility with convention
rights and domestic law . section 3 and section 4 give additional powers to judges . If judges thick the
convention rights are not compatible with domestic law they can issue DOI and if domestic law is
delagted leg then it will be consider as null and void. This is the extra power given to judges .These extra
power given to judges are against the concept of separation of power. According to separation of power
every organ should remain in their own restricted areas and no organ is allowed to interfere in other
organ domain.
The doctrine of judicial precedent is based off of the term stare decisis, which means, ‘stand by the
decision already made’. The idea of binding precedent in the common law system is to ensure fairness in
the law through consistency, to provide predictability of the law and therefore minimize the time spent
in courts exploring different aspects of an already decided, similar on facts, case. This doctrine is in no
way dictated by any authority but is merely a practice developed by the judiciary over the course of
time.

According to this concept of binding precedent judges are bound to follow the decision of higher court .
a binding precedent is binding on lower court unless the decision is not overulled by the higher court or
changed by the parliament itself. The other part of judgement, obiter dicta these are not the binding
part but have persuasive effect. These are not binding on the courts but do hold a persuasive presence
and a judge should consider, if not follow, these statements. This is clearly seen in the law on duress as a
defence to a criminal charge, where the House of Lords in R v Howe (1987) ruled that duress could not
be a defence to a charge of murder. In the judgment the Lords also commented, as an obiter statement,
that duress would not be available as a defence to someone charged with attempted murder. When,
later, in R v Gotts (1992) a defendant charged with attempted murder tried to argue that he could use
the defence of duress, the obiter statement from Howe was followed as persuasive precedent by the
Court of Appeal. Similar point could be made in relation to Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners
Ltd, in which a leading precedent was set in the law of negligence, despite the fact that the relevant
judicial reasoning was almost certainly obiter dicta. This practice as mentioned above supports the idea
of fairness and consistency, and in addition saves an ample amount of time for the courts. Firstly, there
are binding precedents, which are decisions of higher courts or in some cases of equivalent courts.
Secondly, there are persuasive precedents, these include decisions of the judicial committee of the Privy
Council, decisions of courts in other common law countries and decisions of lower courts. the supreme
court in the case of Willer v Joyce, however emphasized the position of Privy council judgments as one
where they can effectively overrule or declare precedents for future courts to follow, reason being that
the privy council is made up of some of the most senior justices of the supreme court. There are
however methods whereby judges can set aside a binding precedent to rule what seems to them as just.
Judges can overrule a past precedent and set a new one, for example the Supreme Court practicing its
powers of the practice statement. They can reverse back to a previous precedent. Judges can also
distinguish between cases to avoid following a precedent that is unfair. Judges can distinguish between
cases on their facts or the point of law involved. The doctrine of binding precedent, to understand the
nature of its operation, can further be subdivided into vertical precedent (the extent to which a court
binds lower courts) and horizontal precedent (the extent to which a court binds itself). Its operation
varies depending on the court in question and so shall be examined in a hierarchal order of the courts.
The Supreme courts (Formerly known as the House of Lords) binds all the inferior courts in the court
hierarchy. In terms of horizontal precedent the House of Lords (HOL), as it then was, took the view that
they should not be bound by their own decisions. In London street tramways ltd v London county
council the HOL confirmed that they would in future bind themselves with their previous decisions. This
in fact was a decision bound to be changed since a strict adherence to precedents can lead to injustice
and restrain the development of the law. So they did with the issue of the practice statement in 1966
providing that the HOL would no longer regard itself be bound by its previous decisions. The HOL
clarified that they will use their freedom on rare occasions mainly where the previous decision seems
unjust or that it is not compliant with the current social status quo. This is evident from the cases that
followed. The first criminal case that was overruled came twenty years after the practice statement was
issued (R v Shivpuri). In civil cases however the court was less reluctant to exercise their powers. They
also overruled Addie v Dumbreck in British Railway board v Herrington. The Supreme Court has not
thought it necessary to re-issue the Practice Statement as a fresh statement of practice in the Court's
own name. This is because it has as much effect in this Court as it did before the Appellate Committee in
the House of Lords. It was part of the established jurisprudence relating to the conduct of appeals in the
House of Lords which was transferred to this Court by section 40 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
So the question which we must consider is not whether the Court has power to depart from the
previous decisions of the House of Lords which have been referred to, but whether in the circumstances
of this case it would be right for it to do so. The court of appeal in terms of vertical precedent is bound
to follow its superior courts and it binds all the lower courts. This situation was challenged by Lord
Denning in the case of Cassell & co ltd v Broome but was rejected by the HOL. His reasons were that the
CoA handles a bulk of cases majority of which are decided finally in the CoA and so the CoA should be
given the powers of the practice statement and not be bound by its own decisions. He once again
objected to this situation in the case of Milliangos v George Frank Ltd but was rejected when the case
went on appeal in the HOL. The basic principle of precedent in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal is
that it is bound by its own previous decisions. There are, however, several exceptions to this rule. The
exceptions were set out by Lord Green MR in the case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd.

The CoA follows the same rules in criminal cases but only wider than its civil counter-part since it’s the
public good at stake in a criminal case (R v Taylor). The Divisional Courts of the High Court are bound by
decisions of the Supreme Court, previous decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal.
Decisions of the Divisional Courts are binding on inferior courts. The Divisional Courts are normally
bound by their own previous decisions, subject to the exceptions in Young v Bristol Aeroplane. When
the courts are not exercising appellate powers, they are in the same position as the High Court. The High
Court is bound by the Supreme Court, previous decisions of the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal and
Divisional Courts. Its decisions bind all inferior courts and tribunals. However, the High Court does not
regard itself as bound by its own previous decisions, although they are regarded as highly persuasive.
The Crown Court is bound by decisions of the superior courts, and its own decisions are binding on the
courts below it in the hierarchy. Decisions on points of law are persuasive but not binding precedents,
although inconsistent decisions can lead to uncertainty

The judicial precedent provide flexibility in common law .The ability to overrule past decisions means
that there is room for law to develop at the same rate as society change.. Sometimes, stare decisis
brings flexibility to the table. But other times, it just makes it harder to overrule a bad decision. While
there is often no obligation to follow precedent, so judges will usually need a very good reason to
overrule a decision.
[a] MS Hannah appealed in court and made an arugument that section 12 of HRA is not applied on their
case because that it only have retrospective effect. MS Hannah made an argument that it is against
human rights that a person has officially decleared as male and after giving birth he is not given the
status of Father

/c/ IN the judgment judges decided that the s 12 has both retrospective and prospective effect. Because
if we see S 9 2 it clearly states that certificate does not affect what has happened already and it has
ordinary meaning of statue. If parliament wanted to have provision to have retrospective only it could
have mentioned it

B There was an argument in the case that satute is not compatible with convention rights because
interpretation is not possible with convention rights. Without declearing compatibility the case could
never be solved.

C firstly no authrotrity has taken part in the procedding nor any appeal has been made against HFEA
1990 so court will not comment on it the treatment and if same case arises in future it will have right to
do so after hearing full arguments

E. state could no longer claim that the metter fell in margin of appericiation because parliament does
not impose a req for surgery and trans person should really be sterilised before getting their acquired
gender