Posted by Kirsty Best, a solicitor in the occupiers’ and public liability department at Legal Futures Associate Express Solicitors
Best: Acute pressures on the system
Despite the government’s decision to increase the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) funding, the department’s budget for 2025-26 is still 14% lower in real terms than in 2007-08, with per capita spending down 24% over the same period.
This is set against an economy that has grown by 27% and a population that has increased by 16%, leaving the justice system operating with resources significantly below those of nearly two decades ago.
Practitioners say the long‑term effects of sustained underinvestment are now embedded across the civil courts, contributing to delays, administrative inconsistencies and widening disparities between digital and paper‑based processes.
Long-term underinvestment and limited political focus
The MoJ has experienced year‑on‑year cuts for more than a decade. Court funding has historically attracted limited political attention compared with areas such as health and education, and practitioners report that the consequences of this approach are now visible across the system.
As my old training principal used to remind me: “There are no votes for the court budget – people are only interested in schools and hospitals!”
While recent announcements indicate annual budget increases through to 2030, most of the additional funding is earmarked for the criminal justice system. Significant allocations are directed towards increasing Crown Court sitting days, expanding prison capacity and supporting the Crown Prosecution Service.
While the issues in criminal courts often reach the press, especially after the publication of The Secret Barrister books, the civil courts barely ever get a mention.
Operational strain across the civil courts
Civil practitioners report that the effects of reduced funding are evident in day‑to‑day operations. Court buildings in poor repair, closures due to maintenance costs, and outdated IT systems all contribute to delays.
Administrative pressures are also acute. Reduced staffing levels since the pandemic have not recovered, and practitioners frequently encounter inconsistent processing, rejected filings and difficulties obtaining updates on cases.
The centralisation of court phone lines has added further challenges, with call handlers often unable to provide case‑specific information or escalate urgent matters until shortly before trial.
A widening gap between digital and paper‑issued claims
One of the most significant disparities arises between claims issued through the Damages Claim Portal (DCP) and those requiring paper issue.
DCP claims are issued immediately, with sealed claim forms available instantly. Directions can be provided the same day, and applications are typically listed or dealt with within 28 days.
Paper claims, processed by the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC), can take four to eight weeks to be issued. Directions questionnaires may take three to four months to be processed before transfer to a local court, where further delays often occur.
Practitioners say that documents frequently need to be re-sent because they have not been transferred from the CNBC to the local court, adding further delay and duplication of work.
This divergence means that two claimants with similar cases can experience markedly different timelines. A DCP-issued claim may conclude within six months, while a paper-issued claim may not reach trial for 12 months or more.
Case example highlights systemic issues
In one recent paper-issued case, a court error resulted in the claim being incorrectly struck out. Although an application to reinstate was made immediately, the review period was 20 weeks.
Once reinstated, it took a further six months to secure a new trial date. The single administrative error extended the life of the claim by almost 10 months. By contrast, similar applications made through the DCP are typically addressed within a month.
Uncertain prospects for improvement
Whether the planned increases to the MoJ budget will lead to meaningful improvements in the civil courts remains unclear. Many practitioners believe that the cumulative impact of a decade of underinvestment has created structural issues that cannot be resolved without targeted reform of civil court operations.
For now, the gap between digital and paper‑based processes continues to widen, and delays remain a defining feature of the civil justice landscape.
Leave a Comment