Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
The Three Paths of Justice

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 10))

  • 1742 Accesses

Abstract

This opening chapter sets the stage for the book. It introduces the Woolf Reforms that begat the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 1998). It identifies five enduring features that continue after the reforms: (1) judges sitting alone; (2) multi-stage proceedings; (3) the English rule of cost shifting to losers; (4) solicitor-barrister division of responsibilities; and (5) vanishing trials. It reports the aims of the Woolf Reforms: (1) improving access to justice and reducing costs; (2) reducing rule complexity; (3) modernizing terminology; (4) unifying practice and procedure. It discusses the key features of the new CPR system: (1) proportionality, in part, through different tracks; (2) procedural equality (‘equality of arms’); (3) active judicial involvement, in part, through case management; (4) improved summary procedures; (5) curbing excessive document disclosure; (6) disciplinary use of costs orders; (7) curbing appeals; (8) stimulating settlement; and (9) encouraging alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lord Woolf’s two reports are: Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995) and Access to Justice: Final Report (London, 1996) both available on-line at: http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/reportfr.htm.

  2. 2.

    On the CPR system from the perspective of the traditional principle of party control, Neil Andrews, ‘A New Civil Procedural Code for England: Party-Control “Going, Going, Gone”,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 19 (2000): 19–38; Neil Andrews, English Civil Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 13.12 to 13.41; 14.04 to 14.45; 15.65 to 15.72.

  3. 3.

    For example, London litigation partner, seminar, Cambridge March 2010.

  4. 4.

    Especially, CPR 31.3(2), 31.7(2), 31.9(1); generally, Neil Andrews, The Modern Civil Process (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr & Siebeck, 2008), Chap. 6.

  5. 5.

    CPR 31.6; the court can vary the width of disclosure in special situations: CPR 31.5(1),(2).

  6. 6.

    CPR 31.16 (3) contains a general power to order pre-action disclosure of documents against a ‘respondent who is likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings’.

  7. 7.

    A convenient source of details concerning the USA system is Moorhead and Hurst’s study: Improving Access to Justice: Contingency Fees: A Study of their operation in the United States of America: A Research Paper informing the Review of Costs (November 2008), edited by Robert Musgrove: http://www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.uk/files/cjc-contingency-fees-report-11-11-08.pdf.

  8. 8.

    Under the CPR system the main rule is that no expert evidence can be presented in a case unless the court has granted permission: CPR 35.4(1) to (3).

  9. 9.

    Neil Andrews, ‘Development in English Civil Procedure: How Far Can the English Courts Reform Their Own Procedure?’ Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 2 (1997): 3–29.

  10. 10.

    Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 34-06 ff.

  11. 11.

    For example, Sir Leonard Hoffmann, ‘Changing Perspectives on Civil Litigation,’ Modern Law Review 56 (1993): 297.

  12. 12.

    Generally on costs, Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, Chap. 9; Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap’s. 35 to 37; M.J. Cook, Cook on Costs (annual editions); P. Hurst, Civil Costs (4th edn, 2007); A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure (2nd edn, 2006), Chap. 26.

  13. 13.

    Sir Rupert Jackson, Review of Civil Litigation Costs (December, 2009: London, 2010); on which A.A.S. Zuckerman, ‘The Jackson Final Report on Costs—Plastering the Cracks to Shore up a Dysfunctional System,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 29 (2010): 263.

  14. 14.

    Terms of appointment cited in Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (London, 1995), introduction.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.; this and its successor are available on-line at: http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/reportfr.htm.

  16. 16.

    Access to Justice: Final Report (London, 1996).

  17. 17.

    A.A.S. Zuckerman and R. Cranston, eds., The Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘Access to Justice’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); R. Cranston, How Law Works: The Machinery and Impact of Civil Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), Chap. 5; Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap. 2; Andrews, ‘A New Civil Procedural Code for England: Party-Control “Going, Going, Gone”,’ 19–38; S. Flanders, ‘Case Management: Failure in America? Success in England and Wales?’ Civil Justice Quarterly 17 (1998): 308; J.A. Jolowicz, ‘The Woolf Report and the Adversary System,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 15 (1996): 198; M. Zander, ‘The Government’s Plans on Civil Justice,’ Modern Law Review 61 (1998): 383 and ‘The Woolf Report: Forwards or Backwards for the New Lord Chancellor?,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 16 (1997): 208; A.A.S. Zuckerman, ‘The Woolf Report on Access to Justice,’ Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 2 (1997): 31 ff.

  18. 18.

    Andrews, English Civil Procedure, preface.

  19. 19.

    A clear statement of this background is M. Zander, The State of Justice (London: Hamlyn Lecture Series, 2000), Chap. 1.

  20. 20.

    On this development Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 9.19 ff; and Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap. 35.

  21. 21.

    Andrews, ‘Development in English Civil Procedure: How Far Can the English Courts Reform Their Own Procedure?’ Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International, 3, at 14 ff.

  22. 22.

    Respectively, CPR Parts 27, 28, 29.

  23. 23.

    CPR 1.4(2); CPR 3.1(2); CPR Parts 26, 28, 29; Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 3.13 ff; Neil Andrews, English Civil Justice and Remedies: Progress and Challenges: Nagoya Lectures (Tokyo: Shinzan Sha Publishers, 2007), Chap. 3; see now The Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide (9th edn, 2011), Section D; and note the anxious discussions engendered by ‘rogue’ ‘super-cases’: the Long Trials Working Party Report December 2007; and a pilot scheme since 2008; for the background, Sir Anthony Clarke MR, ‘The Supercase-Problems and Solutions’, 2007 Annual KPMG Forensic Lecture: available at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/kpmg_speech.pdf.

  24. 24.

    On the CPR system from the perspective of the traditional principle of party control, Andrews, ‘A New Civil Procedural Code for England: Party-Control “Going, Going, Gone,”’ 19–38; Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 13.12 to 13.41; 14.04 to 14.45; 15.65 to 15.72.

  25. 25.

    Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 8.04 ff.

  26. 26.

    On these aspects of CPR Part 35, Neil Andrews, Ibid., Chap. 7; D. Dwyer, The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

  27. 27.

    Southwark London Borough Council v. Maamefowaa Kofiadu [2006] EWCA Civ 281, at [148].

  28. 28.

    CPR 24.2: Swain v. Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, 92, C.A.; Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 5.18 ff.

  29. 29.

    CPR 31.6; Andrews, op. cit., Chap. 6, notably 6.04, 6.22; on the pre-CPR excessive documentary disclosure system, Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report, Chap. 21, at paras 1–9 (commenting on the Peruvian Guano test: Compagnie Financière v. Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55, 63, CA); Sir Johan Steyn (later Lord Steyn), preface. to Hodge and Malek, Discovery (London, 1992); R. Cranston, ‘Complex Litigation: The Commercial Court,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 26 (2007): 190, 203.

  30. 30.

    Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 9.09 ff.

  31. 31.

    [1999] 1 W.LR 1507, 1522-3, C.A.

  32. 32.

    Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 8.12 ff.

  33. 33.

    CPR 52.3(1): except decisions affecting a person’s liberty.

  34. 34.

    CPR 52.4(2); appeals out of time will only exceptionally be permitted: Smith v. Brough [2005] EWCA 261; [2006] CP Rep 17.

  35. 35.

    CPR 52.6(1) (2).

  36. 36.

    Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 10.15 ff.

  37. 37.

    C v. D [2010] EWHC 2940 (Ch); [2011] 1 WLR 31, Warren J, establishes that a Part 36 offer cannot be time-limited, but must be open for acceptance unless withdrawn by the offeror; Gibbon v. Manchester City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 726; [2010] 1 WLR 2081, CA, establishes that a counter-offer made by the offeree does not terminate a Part 36 offer.

  38. 38.

    CPR 1.4(2)(e).

  39. 39.

    Notably, Dunnett v. Railtrack plc [2002] 1 WLR 2434, C.A.; Halsey v. Milton Keynes General NHA Trust [2004] 1 WLR 3002, CA; Nigel Witham Ltd v. Smith [2008] EWHC 12 (Technology and Construction Court), at [36] (J. Sorabji, Civil Justice Quarterly 27 (2008): 427); on this line of cases, Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 11.40 ff.

  40. 40.

    CPR 3.1(2)(f); Neil Andrews, op. cit., at 11.31.

  41. 41.

    The Times 9 April 2009 reported that the ‘hugely overburdened Administrative Court in London…struggles with the caseload that requires extra judges for its 8,000 asylum and immigration cases a year.’

  42. 42.

    See the author’s ‘general report’ (examining nearly 20 jurisdictions) on this topic for the world congress on procedural law in Brazil (2007): Andrews, ‘Pre-action Stage of Civil Proceedings,’ in Direito Processual Comparado: Proceedings of the XIII World Congress on Procedural Law, eds. A. Pellegrini Grinover and Petronio Calmon (Editora Forense: Rio de Janeiro, 2007), 201–41.

  43. 43.

    For the formalities of a deed, s 1(2)(3), Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989; 158–60; Bolton MBC v. Torkington [2004] Ch 66, CA.

  44. 44.

    For comparative discussion, R. Zimmermann, Comparative Foundations of a European Law of Set-off and Prescription (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); in England the subject of limitation of actions, based largely on case law interpretation of the Limitation Act 1980, is so fast-moving and abstruse that Parliament seems to have despaired of reforming it; the nature of possible legislative reform remains controversial: Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap. 12; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (London, 2006), 24.4 ff; A. McGee, Limitation Periods (6th edn, 2010); Law Commission’s discussion, ‘Limitation of Actions’ (Law Commission Report No 270, HC 23, 2001); and ‘Limitation of Actions’ (Law Commission Consultation Paper No 151, 1998); on which, Neil Andrews [1998] Cambridge Law Journal 588; R. James, Civil Justice Quarterly 22 (2003): 41.

  45. 45.

    See Neil Andrews, ‘General report’ (examining nearly 20 jurisdictions) on this topic for the world congress on procedural law in Brazil,’ in Direito Processual Comparado: XIII World Congress of Procedural Law, eds. A. Pellegrini Grinover and R. Calmon (Editora Forense: Rio de Janeiro, 2007), 201–42.

  46. 46.

    Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 2.26 ff.

  47. 47.

    In Carlson v. Townsend [2001] 3 All ER 663, CA, at [24], [28], [31], Brooke LJ.

  48. 48.

    CPR 26.6(1)(2)(3); CPR 27.1.

  49. 49.

    http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-release-290311a.htm.

  50. 50.

    ‘A consultation paper of 2011 supplies details: Solving disputes in the county courts: creating a simpler, quicker and more proportionate system’ (CP 6/2011: Ministry of Justice: Cm 8045) (29 March 2011).

  51. 51.

    CPR 26.6(4); generally, CPR 28.

  52. 52.

    CPR 29; CPR 26.6(6) states: ‘The multi-track is the normal track for any claim for which the small claims track or the fast track is not the normal track.’

  53. 53.

    PD (29) para 2.2.

  54. 54.

    Cf. the small amount litigated in Bowerman v. ABTA (1995) New LJ 1815, CA.

  55. 55.

    CPR 26.3; CPR 26.8(2) states: ‘It is for the court to assess the financial value of a claim and in doing so it will disregard (a) any amount not in dispute; (b) any claim for interest; (c) costs; and (d) contributory negligence.’ PD (26) 7.3(2) states: ‘Where the court believes that the amount the claimant is seeking exceeds what he may reasonably be expected to recover it may make an order under [CPR] 26.5(3) directing the claimant to justify the amount.’

  56. 56.

    CPR 26.8(1).

  57. 57.

    CPR 26.10; see also Maguire v. Molin [2002] 4 All ER 325, CA.

  58. 58.

    The time of commencement of civil proceedings is when the court enters the date on the claim form, CPR 7.2(2); however, for limitation purposes, the date can be earlier: when the claim form was received in the court office: PD (7) 5.1; thus in St Helens MBC v. Barnes [2006] EWCA Civ 1372; [2007] CP Rep 7 (noted J. Sorabji, Civil Justice Quarterly (2007): 166) the Court of Appeal held that a claim was ‘brought’ when a claimant’s request for the issue of a claim form was delivered to the correct court office during its opening hours on the day before the expiry of the limitation period, even though the claim was not issued by the court office until four days later, by which date it was out of time.

  59. 59.

    (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on ‘jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters’: [2001] OJ L 12/1; see, e.g., Gasser GmbH v. MISAT Srl (Case C-116/02) [2003] ECR I-14693 (a court of a Member State on which exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred pursuant to Article 23 of the 2001 Regulation, cannot issue an injunction to restrain a party from prosecuting proceedings before a court of another Member State if that court was first seised of the dispute).

  60. 60.

    On the new system from the perspective of the traditional adversarial principle, Andrews, ‘A New Civil Procedural Code for England: Party-Control “Going, Going, Gone”,’ Civil Justice Quarterly 19 (2000): 19–38; Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 13.12 to 13.41; 14.04 to 14.45; 15.65 to 15.7.

  61. 61.

    Lord Woolf’s two reports are: Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995), and Access to Justice: Final Report (London, 1996): for comment, Zuckerman and Cranston, The Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘Access to Justice’; Cranston, How Law Works, Chap. 5.

  62. 62.

    For example, Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap.’s 13, 14, 15; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (London, 2006), at 1.74 ff, Chap. 10, 11.53 ff.

  63. 63.

    For example, Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap.’s 13, 14, 15; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (London, 2006), at 1.74 ff, Chap. 10, 11.53 ff.

  64. 64.

    CPR 1.4(2); CPR 3.1(2); CPR Parts 26, 28, 29.

  65. 65.

    CPR 1.4(2)(a).

  66. 66.

    CPR 1.4(2)(f).

  67. 67.

    CPR 1.4(2)(e).

  68. 68.

    CPR 3.1(2)(f).

  69. 69.

    CPR 1.4(2)(a).

  70. 70.

    CPR 1.4(2)(d); 3.1(2)(j).

  71. 71.

    CPR 1.4(2)(c).

  72. 72.

    PD (26) 5.1, 5.2.

  73. 73.

    CPR 3.4(2).

  74. 74.

    CPR 3.1(2)(l).

  75. 75.

    CPR 3.1(2)(k).

  76. 76.

    CPR 1.4(2)(g).

  77. 77.

    CPR 1.4(2)(l).

  78. 78.

    For example, suggestion that video-conferencing should be used for short appeals: Black v. Pastouna [2005] EWCA Civ 1389; [2006] CP Rep 11, per Brooke LJ.

  79. 79.

    CPR 1.4(2)(h) and 1.1(2)(c).

  80. 80.

    Biguzzi v. Rank Leisure plc [1999] 1 WLR 1926, 1934 F, CA, per Lord Woolf MR.

  81. 81.

    PD (52) 4.4, 4.5: ‘Case management decisions include decisions made under rule 3.1(2) [containing a long list of procedural powers] and decisions about disclosure, filing of witness statements, or experts reports, directions about the timetable of the claim, adding a party to a claim, and security for costs.’ In this context, a decision concerning permission to appeal requires consideration whether ‘the issue is of sufficient significance to justify the costs of an appeal’, ‘the procedural consequences of an appeal (e.g. loss of trial date) outweigh the significance of the case management decision’, and whether ‘it would be more convenient to determine the issue at or after trial’.

  82. 82.

    Thomson v. O’Connor [2005] EWCA Civ 1533 at [17] to [19], per Brooke LJ; Three Rivers DC v. Bank of England [2005] EWCA Civ 889; [2005] CP Rep 46, at [55]; the authorities cited in Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 13.61 to 13.68, 38.49; Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (London, 2006), 23.193 ff.

  83. 83.

    A. Colman, Commercial Court (5th edn, London: Lloyd’s of London Press, 2000), Chap. 5 (although now rather dated).

  84. 84.

    Senior Courts Act 1981, s 6(1)(2).

  85. 85.

    The Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide (9th edn, 2011); Colman, Commercial Court, 19–20; Cranston, Complex Litigation: The Commercial Court, 190.

  86. 86.

    Colman, Commercial Court, 6–7.

  87. 87.

    ‘puisne’ is the adjective used to describe High Court judges who are knighted or decorated as ‘Dame’.

  88. 88.

    R. Aikens, ‘With A View to Despatch’ (now a Lord Justice of Appeal), in Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amicorum, eds. M. Andenas and D. Fairgrieve (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 563–88.

  89. 89.

    The Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide (9th edn, 2011), at section D4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.: D.4.1: An application for the assignment of a designated judge to a case may be made in circumstances where any or all of the following factors—(i) the size of or complexity of the case, (ii) the fact that it has the potential to give rise to numerous pre-trial applications, (iii) there is a likelihood that specific assignment will give rise to a substantial saving in costs, (iv) the same or similar issues arise in other cases (v) other case management considerations—indicate that assignment to a specific judge at the start of the case, or at some subsequent date, is appropriate… . D4.3: If an order is made for allocation to a designated judge, the designated judge will preside at all subsequent pre-trial case management conferences and other hearings. Normally all applications in the case, other than applications for an interim payment, will be determined by the designated judge and he will be the trial judge. D4.4: In all cases the Commercial Court listing office will endeavour to ensure a degree of judicial continuity. To assist in this, where a previous application in the case has been determined by a judge of the Commercial Court whether at a hearing or on paper, the parties should indicate clearly when lodging the papers, the identity of the judge who last considered the matter, so that so far as reasonably practicable, the papers can be placed before that judge.

  90. 90.

    The Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide (9th edn, 2011), at section D2.

  91. 91.

    CPR 3.8(2).

  92. 92.

    CPR 3.1(2)(f).

  93. 93.

    CPR 3.4(2)(c).

  94. 94.

    For example, Daltel Europe Ltd v. Makki [2006] EWCA Civ 94; [2006] 1 WLR 2704.

  95. 95.

    A.A.S. Zuckerman, ‘Litigation Management Under the CPR: A Poorly-Used Management Infrastructure…’, in The Civil Procedure Rules: Ten Years On, ed. D. Dwyer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 89–108; A.A.S. Zuckerman, ‘Court Management,’ in The Future of Transnational Commercial Litigation: English Responses to the ALI/UNIDROIT Draft Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure, eds. M. Andenas, Neil Andrews, and R. Nazzini, (London: British Institute of Comparative and International Law; re-printed 2006), Chap. 12; and in N. Trocker and V. Varano, eds., The Reforms of Civil Procedure in Comparative Perspective (Torino: Giappichelli, 2005), 143 ff, and Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (2nd edn, 2006), Chap. 10, especially at 10.139 and 10.164 ff; D. Piggott, ‘Relief from Sanctions…,’ Civil Justice Quarterly (2005): 103–29.

  96. 96.

    Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 6.66 ff; recent examples, Keen Phillips (A Firm) v. Field [2006] EWCA Civ 1524; [2007] 1 WLR 686 at [18]; Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v. Wiltshire [2006] EWCA Civ 533; [2006] CP Rep 32; Horton v. Sadler [2006] UKHL 27; [2007] 1 AC 307; Baldock v. Webster [2004] EWCA Civ 1869; [2006] QB 315; but there are limits, e.g., Olafsson v. Gissurarson [2006] EWHC 3162 (QB); [2007] 1 All ER 88 (invalid service in Iceland could not be cured under CPR 3.10).

  97. 97.

    Meredith v. Colleys Vacation Services Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1456; [2002] CP 10; RC Residuals Ltd v. Linton Fuel Oils Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 11; [2002] 1 WLR 2782; N. Madge, ‘Court Management,’ in Experts in Civil Courts, ed. L. Blom-Cooper (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 4.34 ff; cf., in a different context, Calden v. Nunn [2003] EWCA Civ 200 (where the trial window would be missed and the application for permission to adduce the report of a party-appointed expert was unacceptably late); and for refusal to make a disproportionate order in respect of late disclosure of a witness report, Halabi v. Fieldmore Holdings Ltd [2006] EWHC 1965 (Ch).

  98. 98.

    Hougie v. Hewitt [2006] EWHC 2042 (Ch) (relief from striking out for breach of an ‘unless order’; litigant in person’s default mitigated by depression).

  99. 99.

    An interesting qualification exists where the claimant seeks damages for expenditure wasted as a result of the defendant’s breach of contract; the claim will succeed unless the defendant shows that the claimant had entered a loss-making contract, that is, one which would have resulted in economic loss to the claimant even if there had been no breach of contract (CCC Films (London) Ltd v. Impact Quadrant Films Ltd [1985] QB 16, Hutchison J; approved in Dataliner Ltd v. Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association The Independent 30 August 1995, CA).

  100. 100.

    [1996] AC 563, 586, HL.

  101. 101.

    The most recent examination is Dwyer, The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence, containing comparative discussion at 188 ff. Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, Chap. 7; Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap. 32; L. Blom-Cooper, ed., Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

  102. 102.

    CPR 35.1 states: ‘Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.’

  103. 103.

    The court assessor system is of minor significance, being confined to maritime collisions, patent disputes, and costs issues: Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 7.04.

  104. 104.

    CPR 35.4(1) to (3).

  105. 105.

    Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 7.05; Blom-Cooper, Experts in Civil Courts, Chap. 11.

  106. 106.

    Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Abbey National Mortgages plc v. Key Surveyors Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1534, 1542, CA (a pre-CPR case concerning appointment of a court expert under the old RSC Ord 40).

  107. 107.

    Principle 22.4; accessible at: http://www.unidroit.org/english/principles/civilprocedure/main.htm. Also published as ALI/UNIDROIT: Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

  108. 108.

    Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report, Chap. 13, at [19].

  109. 109.

    Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 7.13, 7.14, for details.

  110. 110.

    Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap. 26.

  111. 111.

    CPR Part 31.

  112. 112.

    CPR 31.10(2) and 31.15, subject to certain qualifications added at CPR 31.3(2).

  113. 113.

    CPR 31.6.

  114. 114.

    The court can order narrower disclosure in special situations: CPR 31.5(1) and (2).

  115. 115.

    CPR 31.4.

  116. 116.

    As Lord Hoffmann explained in Taylor v. Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177, 207, HL:

    The concept of an implied undertaking originated in the law of discovery in civil proceedings. A solicitor or litigant who receives documents by way of discovery is treated as if he had given an undertaking not to use them for any purpose other than the conduct of the litigation. As Hobhouse J pointed out in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v. Fountain Page Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 756, 764 the undertaking is in reality an obligation imposed by operation of law by virtue of the circumstances in which the document or information is obtained The reasons for imposing such an obligation were explained by Lord Keith of Kinkel in Home Office v. Harman [1983] 1 AC 280, 308, HL: ‘Discovery constitutes a very serious invasion of the privacy and confidentiality of a litigant’s affairs. It forms part of English legal procedure because the public interest in securing that justice is done between parties is considered to outweigh the private and public interest in the maintenance of confidentiality. But the process should not be allowed to place upon the litigant any harsher or more oppressive burden than is strictly required for the purpose of securing that justice is done.’

  117. 117.

    CPR 31.22; even in situation (a), however, the court has power to make a special order restricting or prohibiting use of a document: CPR 31.22(2).

  118. 118.

    SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v. Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] 4 All ER 498, CA.

  119. 119.

    Jury trial is confined to serious criminal cases (for example, murder, rape, armed robbery) and civil actions for defamation or misconduct by the police (the torts of defamation, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment).

  120. 120.

    CPR 39.2(1); CPR 39.2(3) and PD (39) 1.5 set out exceptions; the primary source is s 67, Senior Courts Act 1981; J. Jaconelli, Open Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

  121. 121.

    CPR 39.2(4); PD (39) 1.4A emphasises the need to consider the requirement of publicity enshrined in Art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into English law, Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1).

  122. 122.

    Rule 25: accessible at: http://www.unidroit.org/english/principles/civilprocedure/main.htm. Also published as American Law Institute/UNIDROIT’s Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (Cambridge University Press, 2006), 137 ff; the members of the drafting group were: Neil Andrews, University of Cambridge, UK; Professor Frédérique Ferrand, Lyon, France; Professor Pierre Lalive, formerly University of Geneva, sometime Goodhart Professor Legal Science, Cambridge, in practice as an international commercial arbitrator, Switzerland; Professor Masanori Kawano, Nagoya University, Japan; Mme Justice Aida Kemelmajer de Carlucci, Supreme Court, Mendoza, Argentina; Professor Geoffrey Hazard Jr, now Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, USA; Professor Ronald Nhlapo, formerly of the Law Commission, South Africa; Professor Dr iur Rolf Stürner, University of Freiburg, Germany, and Judge at the Court of Appeals of the German State Baden-Württemberg, Karlsruhe; the assistant to these discussions was Professor Antonio Gidi, now University of Houston Law Center.

  123. 123.

    Detailed account: Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 31.41 to 31.51.

  124. 124.

    This phrase replaces the hallowed terms subpoena ad testificandum (order to attend to give oral evidence) and subpoena duces tecum (order to attend with relevant documents or other items): CPR 34.2.

  125. 125.

    CPR 34.7; PD (34) 3, referring to provisions applicable also to compensation for loss of time in criminal proceedings.

  126. 126.

    Fast-track: PD (28) 8.2; multi-track: PD (29) 10.2; detailed account: Andrews, English Civil Procedure, 31.21 to 31.24.

  127. 127.

    Ibid.

  128. 128.

    Ibid.

  129. 129.

    Or direction to the jury; for rules concerning judgments, CPR 40 and PD (40); on the court’s discretion whether to complete judgment once it has begun to deliver it (or to deliver it initially in draft form) Prudential Assurance Co v. McBains [2000] 1 WLR 2000, CA; on the court’s power to re-open a case before perfecting a judgment, Stewart v. Engel [2000] 3 All ER 518, CA.

  130. 130.

    CPR 44.3, 44.7(a).

  131. 131.

    Detailed account: Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap. 38; CPR Part 52; for US comparisons, P.S. Atiyah and R. Summers, Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), Chap. 10; for comparative perspectives on appeals, J.A. Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), Chaps. 14 to 16; for reflections on the private and public functions of civil appeals, especially in the highest chamber, see the reports by J.A. Jolowicz, P. Lindblom, and S. Goldstein, in The Role of the Supreme Courts at the National and International Level, ed. P. Yessiou-Faltsi (Thessaloniki, Greece: Sakkoulas Publications, 1998).

  132. 132.

    CPR 52.3(1): except decisions affecting a person’s liberty, namely appeals against committal orders, refusals to grant habeas corpus and secure accommodation orders made under s 25, Children Act 1989.

  133. 133.

    CPR 52.4(2).

  134. 134.

    PD (52).

  135. 135.

    CPR 52.11(2) and (4).

  136. 136.

    CPR 52.11(3).

  137. 137.

    http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-release-290311a.htm.

  138. 138.

    Andrews, The Modern Civil Process, 8.02 ff for details of trial.

  139. 139.

    Southwark London Borough Council v. Kofi-Adu [2006] EWCA Civ 281; [2006] HLR 33, at [148].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clare College, Trinity Lane, CB2 1TL, Cambridge, UK

    Neil Andrews

Authors
  1. Neil Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Andrews .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Andrews, N. (2012). Introduction. In: The Three Paths of Justice. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2294-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation