CJC launches review of track limits and High Court boundary


Vos: Significant opportunity

A “generational” review of court track limits and the boundary between the High Court and county court has been kicked off by the Civil Justice Council (CJC).

It will examine whether the current framework – last looked at in 2014 – remains fit for purpose and assess whether existing limits and jurisdictional boundaries support efficient case allocation, proportionate costs and effective access to justice.

The Master of the Rolls and CJC chair Sir Geoffrey Vos said: “This is a significant opportunity to take stock of how track limits and jurisdictional boundaries operate across the civil justice system.

“We must ensure that the framework keeps pace with changes in case complexity, procedure and technology, and that it supports a system that is fair, efficient and accessible to all.”

In a statement, the CJC said its working group – the members of which have not yet been named – would consider track limits and allocation in the context of digital reform, regional practice and judicial deployment, recognising variations across England and Wales and the importance of transparency for court users, particularly in relation to costs, case management and legal representation.

“The work will be informed by data as well as judicial and practitioner experience, with appropriate involvement from High Court and county court judiciary, data specialists and HMCTS on an observer basis, to support the development of coherent and future‑proofed recommendations.”

The working group has been tasked with gathering and analysing data on the impact of current track allocation and court jurisdiction on efficiency, cost and access to justice, including consideration of data gaps, limitations in existing HMCTS data, and how these affect the accuracy of case allocation.

The terms of reference include promoting “simplicity, predictability and accessibility for all court users, particularly litigants in person”, and considering how frameworks may be better ‘future‑proofed’ to support improved data collection and periodic review.

The CJC is looking to recruit for the working group a member with expertise in data infrastructure and information governance.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


The ‘blank sheet’ challenge – what would you do differently?

Posted by Scott Jones, deputy editor of Legal Futures In the run-up to this week’s LegalTechTalk, we are inviting lawyers to take the ‘blank sheet’ challenge – sketching out their dream law firm with the freedom to start again from scratch. What… Read More


The ‘blank sheet’ challenge – what would you do differently?

The law is all about precedent and what came before. But imagine you had a blank sheet of paper and could start from scratch. What would you do differently? What would stay the same?


Why is Andrew Malkinson still paying for a crime he didn’t commit?

Like many in my profession and beyond, I have been moved by the case of Andrew Malkinson, the man who spent 17 years in prison for an awful crime he did not commit.


Loading animation