The UK civil litigation system has undergone significant reform over the past decade, most notably through the Jackson Reforms and the ongoing digitisation of court processes under the HMCTS Reform Programme. These changes have aimed to reduce costs, streamline procedures, and increase accessibility. However, they have also sparked debate over their effectiveness and fairness. This article evaluates the key reforms in civil litigation procedure and assesses their practical impact on litigants, legal professionals, and the judiciary.
1. Introduction
Civil litigation in England and Wales has long been criticised for being too costly, too slow, and overly complex. In response, a series of reforms have been implemented since 2010 to improve efficiency and reduce the burden on court users. The two most significant of these are:
● The Jackson Reforms (implemented from 2013 onward), which targeted litigation costs and case management, and
● The HMCTS Reform Programme, which introduced digitisation and online court systems.
These reforms have reshaped how civil disputes are managed and resolved. This article analyses their objectives, implementation, and real-world effects.
2. The Jackson Reforms: Background and Objectives
The Jackson Reforms originated from Lord Justice Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs (2010), which found that litigation costs in England and Wales were “too often disproportionate” to the value of the claim.
The key objectives of the reforms were:
● Promoting proportionality in costs,
● Encouraging early settlement,
● Increasing judicial case management, and
● Reducing satellite litigation over costs.
To achieve these goals, a number of changes were introduced via the Legal Aid, Sentencing
and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and amendments to the Civil Procedure
Rules (CPR).
3. Key Features of the Jackson Reforms
3.1. Changes to Funding and Costs Recovery
● Success fees and After-the-Event (ATE) insurance premiums are no longer
recoverable from the losing party in Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs), shifting these
costs to successful claimants.
● Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) was introduced in personal injury claims,
limiting the risk of adverse costs orders against claimants.
3.2. Costs Budgeting and Management
● Parties in multi-track cases must now submit Precedent H costs budgets, which are
subject to court approval.
● Judges actively manage these budgets to ensure proportionality.
3.3. Proportionality Principle in Costs Assessment
● The new test of proportionality (CPR 44.3) requires that costs be proportionate to the
matters in issue, not merely reasonable.
3.4. Sanctions for Non-Compliance
● The reforms introduced a stricter approach to procedural compliance. Failure to meet
deadlines or procedural obligations can lead to severe sanctions, including strike-outs or
cost penalties (e.g., Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537).
4. Evaluating the Jackson Reforms
4.1. Positive Outcomes
● Greater control over litigation costs, especially in lower-value claims.
● Encouragement of settlement through cost pressure and case management.
● Reinforced the principle of proportionality, focusing court resources on the most serious cases.
4.2. Criticisms and Unintended Consequences
● Claimants in CFA-backed claims now bear a heavier financial burden if successful, potentially reducing their net damages.
● Costs budgeting has added complexity and front-loaded litigation work, particularly burdensome for small firms.
● The increased risk of adverse procedural sanctions has created a ‘culture of fear’ among practitioners, with critics arguing it undermines substantive justice in favour of rigid process.
5. Court Digitisation and the HMCTS Reform Programme
5.1. Overview of the Reform Programme
The Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) launched a £1.3 billion reform programme in 2016 to modernise the justice system. Key features include:
● Creation of Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC),
● Rollout of digital case management systems (e.g., CE-File in the High Court),
● Remote hearings and video conferencing,
● Digital submission of evidence and forms.
5.2. Objectives of Digitisation
● Increase access to justice, particularly for litigants in person,
● Reduce court backlog and delays,
● Cut costs for the justice system and its users,
● Improve transparency and user experience.
6. Impact of Digitisation on Civil Litigation
6.1. Improved Efficiency and Accessibility
● Online platforms like OCMC have made it easier to initiate and manage claims under £10,000 without legal representation.
● Remote hearings have allowed continued operation of courts during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
● Digitisation has reduced delays in administrative processes and enabled better case tracking.
6.2. Challenges and Concerns
● Digital exclusion remains a serious concern; many elderly, disabled, or economically disadvantaged users may lack digital literacy or internet access.
● Some practitioners report that remote hearings lack the gravitas of in-person proceedings and can hinder effective communication, particularly in complex cases.
● Technical issues and inconsistent implementation across courts have led to frustration and inefficiencies.
8. Conclusion
The recent reforms to civil litigation in the UK have fundamentally altered the landscape of dispute resolution. The Jackson Reforms introduced a new culture of cost control and procedural rigour, while the digitisation of the courts promises greater efficiency and accessibility.
However, these benefits come with trade-offs. Claimants may bear greater cost risks, procedural compliance can trump substantive justice, and digital innovation risks leaving behind the most vulnerable. A fair civil justice system must balance efficiency with equity, and access with accountability. Future reform efforts must ensure that the civil courts serve not just the system, but the people who depend on it.