Digitisation of Civil Claims and the Online Court - Is Covid-19 set to accelerate the reforms?
In 2016, Lord Justice Briggs set out his proposals for restructuring the civil courts and tribunals in England and Wales. The vision for modernising court services and creating the “Online Court” has seen the introduction of online platforms for civil claims in recent years but progress has been described as slow.
Please note: the information contained in this legal update is correct as of the original date of publication.
In 2016, Lord Justice Briggs set out his proposals for restructuring the civil courts and tribunals in England and Wales. The vision for modernising court services and creating the “Online Court” has seen the introduction of online platforms for civil claims in recent years but progress has been described as slow.
Money Claims Online (MCOL)
The online portal for Part 7 money claims has been in operation since 2002 offering a simplified and accessible system for litigants to issue straightforward claims for a specified sum. This development appears to have been the first real step in attempting to modernise court services well ahead of the 2016 proposals.
Despite being described as outdated, parties continue to issue and respond to claims through MCOL. It is limited to money claims for a fixed value of less than £100,000 and subject to other conditions which are set out at Practice Direction 7(E) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
MCOL has arguably offered wider access to justice during the Covid-19 pandemic where it has otherwise been restricted. Court closures and reduced resources may well have caused significant delays in issuing claims, generating a greater backlog of disputes and potentially resulting in missed limitation dates.
MCOL does, however, highlight the importance of getting the technology right to ensure the success of the digitisation of civil claims and the Online Court. 10 years later, MCOL continues to experience issues with functionality and it is arguable that the online portal over-simplifies the court processes. By way of example, the online portal restricts the level of detail that can be included within the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim. As a result, claims are not being properly pleaded. Separately, MCOL does not fully recognise the parties’ ability to agree extensions of time to court deadlines. Glitches in the system have resulted in adverse orders being made in error (e.g. default judgments) which are costly and time consuming for the parties to try to resolve.
MCOL may well become redundant subject to the success of other future online claims processes being rolled out.
Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) Pilot
In 2017, the OCMC Pilot was introduced for unrepresented Claimants to issue Part 7 money claims of up to the value of £10,000 that would otherwise be made through MCOL. The pilot is governed by CPR PD 51R and is set to end later this year. It has been described as currently the nearest thing to the Online Court. Progress has seen the pilot open up to professionals and there are future plans to develop the OCMC to increase the current small claims limit from £10,000 to £25,000.
Unlike MCOL, this online platform is set to provide an end-to-end digital service for users through which cases can be progressed and determined. In response to Covid-19, the 119th Practice Direction update granted judges within the OCMC the jurisdiction to review online Directions Questionnaires and make directions irrespective of the value of the claim. This development was expedited in support of the Covid-19 effort. Despite some progress, if the parties are unable to reach a settlement through the online process, determination of the claim would currently revert to the traditional in-person hearing. There are proposals for determination on digital papers or by virtual hearings. Whether the move to virtual hearings owing to COVID-19 has expedited those proposals remains to be seen.
County Court Online (CCO) Pilot
A separate pilot for Claimants legally represented also started in 2017 and is set to end later this year. The CCO pilot is governed by CPR PD 51S and is being rolled out to test a procedure enabling legal representatives to issue claims in the County Court for a specified or unspecified sum of money.
Initially the pilot was by invitation only, however it was opened up to all legal professionals in response to Covid-19. The digital service was also extended to Part 7 personal injury claims in response to the pandemic.
At this stage, the CCO pilot appears to be limited in functionality with provision to file and issue claims. The process then continues on paper in the usual way.
Covid-19 Impact
In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the civil justice system in England and Wales has been forced to rapidly adapt to the new way of online working, necessitating a significant investment in technology to enable the function of court services to continue.
Progress was being made in digitising the civil justice system and creating the Online Court prior to the pandemic. The above mentioned pilot schemes are now in their final year, subject to any further extensions but still appear to be in the early stages of development. Covid-19 has seemingly accelerated the programme to digitise civil claims processes however, it has been suggested that the Online Court should be treated as distinct from the virtual alternatives to physical courts triggered by the pandemic. There is an argument that they cannot be treated distinctly to deal with those claims which are incapable of resolution through the online process or otherwise require disposal in the usual court forum, at least for the immediate future.
Government and devolved administrations have now released roadmaps to exiting lockdown which is hoped to allow the UK to resume business as usual. Covid-19 continues to forcibly modernise and streamline court processes. Claims are increasingly being issued online and hearings continue to take place remotely by way of telephone and video. In a bid to recover from the impact of the pandemic, the civil justice system could revert to the traditional way of working. Conversely, there is wide recognition for the importance of reform and modernisation of court services.
The recent rapid acceleration of technology led court services will hopefully serve to improve the civil justice system in England and Wales however, there is still a long way to go. The key is getting the transition right.
Contact
Mark Hickson
Head of Business Development
onlineteaminbox@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)370 270 6000
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Changes to the fixed recoverable costs regime
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Opinion
School attendance matters
Legal Update
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Legal Update
UK falls to lowest position for corruption – so what’s going wrong?
Legal Update
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Legal Update
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Legal Update
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
Legal Update
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Legal Update
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
Legal Update
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
Opinion
Should problem-solving housing courts be piloted?
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Legal Update
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Legal Update
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
Guide
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
Press Release
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Published Article
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Opinion
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Legal Update
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Legal Update
High Court dismisses Welsh RSE right to withdraw claim
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Opinion
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Legal Update
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Opinion
The Future of Mediation
Legal Update
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Legal Update
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Legal Update
Failure to comply with PD57AC — it can be costly!
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
Opinion
Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.