HAMLYN - College of Social Sciences and International Studies ...

Civil Justice
not welcome them, fearing that they would on balance make
matters worse rather than better. 50 It will take a while before one
can judge whether those fears were justified. The first indications
suggest that the new procedural rules are bedding in well
and there seems to be a general feeling that they have got off to
a good start, but these early and somewhat encouraging signs
do not throw much light on the overall impact of the reforms.
Before explaining why I continue to have my doubts, I want
to pay tribute to Lord Woolf for the remarkable achievement of
getting his project off the drawing board and into operation, and
within so short a time. It can truly be said that he had a vision
and that he largely translated it into action. The essence of the
vision was that the well-known ills of civil litigation were
mainly the result of the system and of the ways that lawyers
abused it. Litigation was conducted in too adversary a manner.
Delays were endemic because a leisurely pace was accepted and
no attention was paid to time-limits. Costs were out of proportion
to the amount at stake.
Lord Woolf's answer was nothing less than to change the
culture—to transfer the management of cases from the lawyers
to the courts, to make everyone adhere to time-tables, to require
early preparation of cases and to penalise unreasonable conduct
by the parties. The new rules start with the Overriding Objective
that cases should be dealt with justly. This is denned to mean
ensuring, so far as practicable, that parties be on an equal
footing; that a case be dealt with in ways that are proportionate
to the amount of money involved, to the importance of the case,
to its complexity and to the financial position of each party;
ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources,
while taking into account the need to allot resources to other
cases. 51
A consultation paper recently issued by the Lord Chancellor's
Department on plans for the Evaluation of the Civil Justice
Reforms said that, broadly, the aim of the reforms had been
described as seeking to reduce delay, cost and complexity and
50 See especially, M. Zander, "The Woolf Report Forwards or Backwards for the
new Lord Chancellor?", Civil Justice Quarterly, (July 1997), pp. 208-227. For
Lord Woolf's response see "Medics, Lawyers and the Courts", Civil Justice
Quarterly (October 1997), pp. 302-317. For the writer's reply see New Law
Journal (May 23, 1997), p. 768.
51 CPR r. 1.1.
40