{"id":19321,"date":"2017-11-14T15:27:10","date_gmt":"2017-11-14T15:27:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=19321"},"modified":"2019-04-17T17:16:06","modified_gmt":"2019-04-17T17:16:06","slug":"news-focus-dont-blow-a-fuse-over-online-civil-court-law-gazette","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/news-focus-dont-blow-a-fuse-over-online-civil-court-law-gazette\/","title":{"rendered":"News focus: Don’t blow a fuse over online civil court – Law Gazette"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

Nearly two years ago, in his interim report on civil justice reform, Lord Justice Briggs floated the idea of an online civil court resolving claims worth up to \u00a325,000 without the involvement of lawyers. In theory, that could still happen. A very basic prototype has been undergoing two sets of private \u2018beta tests\u2019 \u2013 jargon for testing by a selected group of end-users \u2013 since the summer.<\/p>\n

However despite upbeat announcements by HM Courts & Tribunals Service\u2019s energetic new chief executive Susan Acland-Hood, it is becoming clear that the online court\u2019s first few iterations will be considerably less ambitious than Briggs envisaged. And to get even that far will mean tackling a number of awkward questions \u2013 including that of where solicitors fit in the scheme.<\/p>\n

Last week\u2019s bar conference gave Acland-Hood a chance to pitch her plan<\/a> to an informed and highly sceptical audience. The online court is only one element of the \u00a31bn courts reform programme, at least two elements of which, court closures and flexible sitting hours, have attracted the profession\u2019s fury. But these are only enabling elements of a wider strategy to transform the courts system through IT. (A cynic might suspect a decoy strategy at work here.)<\/p>\n

New developments, she said, include the implementation of online sentencing for fare evaders<\/a> at Lavender Hill Magistrates\u2019 Court, London: \u2018We\u2019re now putting 350 cases a week through this system.\u2019 The next step will be to take in DVLA and TV licensing penalties, she added. \u00a0<\/p>\n

As for the online court, she was careful to play down the \u2018lawyer-free\u2019 aspect, emphasising that the intention is merely for the system to be navigable by lay litigants. Legal professionals would act in \u2018many claims\u2019 and the system will be expanded to meet their needs. \u2018We will also provide an online negotiation and settlement tool, and expect to see many more people getting redress quickly and simply.\u2019<\/p>\n

For the moment, however, the version on test is considerably more modest. It handles disputes between two parties only with a value up to \u00a310,000, for specified-sum claims such as unpaid invoices rather than injury compensation, and processes the issue of claim and response only.<\/p>\n

\u2018It is still early days, but my impression is that the online court is going a lot slower, with far less of the results that were once envisaged,\u2019 leading civil litigation silk and deputy High Court judge Derek Sweeting QC of 7 Bedford Row told the conference. He pointed out the difficulties of evolving the system to handle anything more than the most basic claim. An attempt to create a decision tree to guide litigants through holiday claims, for example, had quickly ended up with \u2018hundreds and hundreds of branches \u2013 literally like a tree\u2019. It has since been shelved, he said.<\/p>\n

The modest start is in keeping with the \u2018agile\u2019 approach to building IT systems adopted across the government after a string of fiascos involving \u2018big bang\u2019 computer projects, including several for the courts. The golden rule is to build in small components, get them out for testing by real users, and tweak them continuously based on real experience. Once developed, these components can be installed many times across the overall system.<\/p>\n

\u2018We\u2019re building lots and lots of Lego bricks,\u2019 Acland-Hood said. One example is a system for tracking appeals, to be installed initially in a system to give social security and child support appellants updates by email and text. \u2018The basic engine could be used across pretty well any type of case,\u2019 she added. This is also the key to future-proofing the system, which Acland-Hood defined as building for \u20182050 not 2015\u2019.<\/p>\n

Agile project methodology, however, is not much help when many basic questions about the end system remain to be answered. One is when and how the system should encourage litigants in person to seek legal advice. Both the Bar Council and Law Society are urging HMCTS to include a button labelled something like \u2018seek professional advice\u2019 which would take litigants to the Find a Solicitor website and a list of public access barristers. Lawyers are also suggesting a \u2018pause\u2019 button allowing litigants to hold the process in order to print off copies of the claim for checking by a third party.\u00a0 \u2018It is critical that legal advice remains available to help consumers navigate the online court,\u2019 says Law Society president Joe Egan. \u2018We strongly endorse the view that any online system should feature clear signposting to appropriate sources of legal advice.\u2019<\/p>\n

Andrew Langdon QC, chair of the bar, told his conference that the online court \u2018sounds like it may be a partial solution in relation to straightforward money claims, provided that there is always room to get advice from someone who knows the law and has relevant experience \u2013 otherwise known as a lawyer \u2013 and room for challenging witnesses where veracity or accuracy is in issue\u2019.<\/p>\n