Chancery Modernisation Review

In February 2013, The Chancellor of the High Court announced a review of the practice and procedure of the Chancery Division. Consultees were asked to comment on:

• the current practices and procedures for the conduct of business in the Chancery Division, bearing in mind the changes then about to be implemented following the Jackson Report;
• whether current case management procedures best serve the needs of court users and, if not, proposals for change;
• whether the current basis for allocation of judicial resources makes the best use of the available skills and experience available and, if not, proposals for change; and
• recommendations to secure the best access to justice for litigants in person.

Following an initial period of consultation, a provisional report by Briggs LJ was published on 30 July 2013. Although it recognises that the Chancery Division provides a high quality service to its users, the report makes over 100 recommendations, including:

• The provision of modern IT.
• Better access to justice for litigants in person, including a designated counter service in the Rolls Building.
• Common divisional management of the Chancery Division, the Commercial Court and the Technology and Construction Court.
• Case management to focus on dispute resolution, rather than preparation for trial.
• More docketing and case management by judges.
• A fixed time period for trials and a four-day-trial week, to leave Fridays free for case management hearings.
• The transfer of cases issued in London to the regional trial centres.

The report can be accessed here. The further consultation period closes on 31 October 2013, with a final report expected by the end of December 2013.

Please click on the links below for the other articles in the commercial litigation newsletter

• Jackson update
• Hot-tub: lessons from Australia
• The importance of clarity when it comes to the terms of, and costs associated with, settlement
• Third party funder entitled to terminate funding agreement
• Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses valid as a matter of English law
• Service: retrospective validation of the claim form permitted and receipt by fax sufficient for French courts to be seised
• Disclosure and privilege update: increasing transparency and guidance on the dominant purpose test
• Can the corporate veil ever be pierced?
• Part 36: valid acceptance and "near-miss" offers
• CPR 66th update
• Collective actions update: "opt-out" coming to a competition claim near you
• Judicial Review: reforms made and more to come
• Courts to become self-financing?