Law 9084

Civil Justice System – Methods, Courts, Appeals And Legal Aid

Paper 1 & 2

Civil Justice System – Methods, Courts, Appeals And Legal Aid

Civil Justice System – Methods, Courts, Appeals And Legal Aid 

The chapter is tested almost every year in Paper 1. The question comes in the form of a problem question most often, moreover you must know that there can be 5 types of questions from this chapter:
1.  ADR: Here you discuss negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, courts and tribunals.
2.  Methods: Here you talk about ADR,  Courts, and the methods
3.  Courts: Here you discuss how a civil proceeding goes about.
4.  Appeals: Here you must talk about the courts and ADR briefly and then asses and critique the Appeals.
5.  Legal Aid: Here you discuss the problems that might occur due to costs and how legal aid is good or bad. Ensure to critique. 

As already pointed out in Chapter 1, it is necessary to consider the distinctions between civil and criminal courts. Civil proceedings address a wide variety of problems, and there may be a really clear description that can encompass all of them. However, the simple concept of civil lawsuits is that they occur when a person or a company feels that their privileges have been infringed in any manner. Four of the major fields of criminal law are contract law, tort law, family law, employment law, and business law.

As well as engaging with various fields of law, the kinds of conflicts that can occur in the context of civil law are similarly varied. A business can argue that it owes money (contract law); this form of allegation could be about a few pounds or a hundred million. A person may seek remedies for the damage sustained in the event of an incident (torture of negligence), while in another situation, the lawsuit will not be for damages but for another remedy: such as an injunction to prohibit anyone from building on the contested property. Certain forms of court decisions include a winding-up of a business that can not meet its creditors or a dissolution decree for a marriage that has collapsed. The countdown is nearly endless 


1.  Negotiation

In most legal proceedings, individuals consider a court case as a last resort and may seek and settle the issue without heading and trial such that, when a conflict occurs, a kind of settlement is likely to take place. The most popular case is that the person presenting the complaint either goes to visit the other side and discusses the issue (this is normal when shoppers carry back the non-standard goods) or sends a report to the other side. Many disputes can be settled at this point with the other party deciding to repay the money, alter goods, settle the debt, or take some such measure.

The desire to seek and settle every conflict is illustrated in the pamphlets provided by the Court of Justice regarding proceedings in litigation. I'm in a fight with their leaflet, what should I do? , shall contain the following information:

Do all disputes have to be settled in court?

No, no. It will usually be the last option to go to court. It can be costly, difficult, and time-consuming.

You will still seek to find an understanding before heading to arbitration. For starters, if you are in disagreement with an entity, you can follow the organization's litigation process before you start filing a lawsuit for the trial.

If you bring a lawsuit to the court without even taking any attempt to negotiate a compromise, you may notice that the judge may be keeping the allegation against you while deciding the recovery of the costs of the trial. You cannot have the expenses back, or the judge can require you to compensate the expenses of the other side, even though you win the lawsuit.

Some forms you could attempt to achieve an arrangement involve mechanisms such as consultation, mediation, and arbitration. These are also more casual than trial hearings.

2.  Legal Advice

And if the other side refuses to resolve the dispute, the aggrieved individual must determine if he or she is willing to pursue the matter forward. The most likely next move is to seek legal counsel and maybe get a prosecutor to talk to the other party. It can contribute to a 'bargaining' scenario where a variety of correspondence is exchanged between the sides, and a settlement is eventually achieved. However, if, despite all this, the other party fails to pay the debt or compensation, or whatever else is alleged, the aggrieved individual shall pay the debt or compensation.

It has to determine if the issue is worth exploring even more. This could include beginning a legal case, or an alternate method of conflict settlement can be used (these options to heading to trial are mentioned in the next chapter).

3.  Going To Court

Bringing a case to trial will be a daunting practice, particularly though you intend to 'play-it-yourself' and do not have a lawyer. There will be a trial charge depending on the form and amount of the lawsuit that may be taken back by the opposing side should you win the case, although there is also a chance that you will lose the case and continue to cover the expenses of the other side. And if you qualify, the troubles will not be solved, because the other party does not have enough funds to settle the fee to cover the expenses. When the situation is complex, it may take years to finish, and it might cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.

In spite of these issues, it is not shocking that even individuals who think they have a fair argument opt not to pursue legal action.

Nevertheless, beginning a legal dispute does not mean that it necessarily goes to trial. The overwhelming majority of lawsuits are decided out of litigation such that fewer than 1% of the proceedings taken to the federal courts proceed as far as trial trials. It is because the conflict is a private matter between the individuals involved so they will resolve their own disagreement at any moment, even after the hearings have ended.

3.1 Starting A Court Case

The civil justice structure was revamped after the Woolf Commission in 1999. 

The Parties are allowed to give evidence to each other in an effort to eliminate the need to launch too many court proceedings. Therefore, when a claim comes to the court, in particular in situations of serious injuries, a 'protocol' pre-action will be practiced. That is a list of items to be performed because, because the respondents may not obey the protocol to send the relevant material to the other side, they will be responsible for any damages because they present a complaint to the judge. The material is generally given in a letter detailing briefly how the claim arises, whether it is alleged that the other party is at fault, specifics of the accident or other damage, and any other related matter. The claimant shall then be granted three months to review the allegation and shall then respond, pointing out if the responsibility is admitted or whether it is rejected, including the justification for the denial. If expert testimony is required, the parties will seek to consent to the usage of one expert. That will contribute to a lot of cases being dismissed, but there would also be those who continue to proceed to arbitration.

3.2     Which Court To Use?

Where the decision is made to go to court, then the first problem is which court to use. The two courts which hear civil cases are:

The County Court

The High Court.

For situations where the claim is for £ 25,000 or fewer, the request will be taken to the County Court. For bigger cases, you will typically pick either the County Court or the High Court to start a lawsuit. It is also the condition of the Woolf Reforms. There are, however, certain limitations set down in the 1991 ruling of the High Court and County Courts. Those are the following:

Personal injury cases for less than £50,000 must be started in the County Court.

Defamation actions must be started in the High Court.

In certain cases, however, the claimant should be free to select the most suitable court to start the lawsuit. The key factors to be weighed in the decision-making phase are the quantity alleged and how the argument is likely to pose a complicated question of law. The fact that a lawsuit is taken to a judge does not automatically imply that there would be a jury; the proceedings can be moved from one judge to the other for the final hearing if this is deemed appropriate. When the appeal is decided, the trial is then moved to the proper route, and, at the same point, it may be shifted to another judge.      

3.3 Issuing A Claim

When you choose the County Court, you can opt to bring a lawsuit in either of the 230 or so county courts in the country. If you are using the high court, you can switch to either of the 20 District Registers or the central court of Town. You need the 'N1' argument form. The Court Office may supply you with instructions detailing how to fill out the request. Court workers will help you ensure that you have finished the application form correctly, or you can seek support from rehabilitation centers or the Citizens Advice Bureau. When you have finished the application, you can photocopy it so that you have a copy for the trial, a copy for yourself and a copy for each defendant. And carry the document to the courthouse.

The charge for filing the claim will be charged by the court. The fee depends based on how long the statement is about.

At the beginning of 2013, the charge for a claim of up to 300 p.m. was 35 p.m., and the highest cost for a limited claim (under 5000 p.m.) was 120 p.m.

Representations of £ 5,000 to £ 15,000 had a fee of £ 245, whereas representations of over £ 300,000 had a fee of £ 1,670 at the peak of the scale.

3.4      Defending A Claim

There are many paths that can be followed as the claimant gets the claim document. They can accept the claim and pay the full sum of the claim. The situation stops when this occurs. The complainant has accomplished what he desired. In other situations, the defendant can challenge the allegation. Unless the claimant wants to answer the lawsuit, he or she will give either an acknowledgment of service (Form N9) or a response to the court within 14 days of receipt of the petition. Unless only an acknowledgment of operation is received, the offender will have a further 14 days to represent the defense.

If the defendant refuses to do any of these items, the applicant may ask the court to require the defendant to pay the money and costs alleged. It is considered an order by nature. If the case has been decided, the court must assign the case to the most suitable 'line' or form of coping with the matter.

3.5     Allocation Of Cases

The decision on which track should be used is made by the District Judge

In the County Court or the Master (a procedural judge) in the High Court. The tracks are:

1. The small claims track

This is normally used for disputes under £5,000, except for personal injury cases and housing cases where the limit is usually £1,000.

2. The fast track

This is used for straightforward disputes of £5,000 to £25,000.

3. The multi-track

This refers to situations of more than £ 25,000 or too complicated cases of less than that number.

Note that the government worked on proposed changes to the civil court structure in 2011. In the debate, it was proposed that the standard for small-track proceedings should be increased to at least £ 10,000 in order to stay in line with inflation.

To order to help the judge decide which track of the lawsuit will be allocated, a distribution request is submitted to all parties. If it is thought necessary, the judge can allocate a case to a track that normally deals with claims of a higher value. Alternatively, if the parties agree, the judge can allocate a case to a lower-value track. A decision can, therefore, be made to move the appeal from the County Court to the Supreme Court or vice versa, with cases above £ 25,000. Claims ranging between £ 25,000 and £ 50,000 are usually taken to the trial in which the prosecutions have been started. Claims seeking more than £ 50,000 are typically taken to the Supreme Court, but they may be heard before the County Court.

We're going to go on to discuss the various courts and tracks.

3.6          Small Claims

Clearly, it is necessary to provide a fairly inexpensive and easy means of presenting a claim for a specific sum of money, or the expenses of the case would be much higher than the amount at question. That is why the small claims process began in 1973, and originally only cases of up to £ 75 may be brought there. The cap has subsequently been extended many times, in fact in 1991, where the amount was increased to £ 1,000; in 1996 following the Woolf Study, the cap was increased to £ 3,000; and in 1999 it was increased to £ 5,000. The cap is expected to be increased again to at least £ 10,000 in the foreseeable future.

3.6.1     Small Claims Procedure

Citizens are allowed to choose their own case and hold costs down. Nevertheless, due to the current regulations, minor claims lawsuits are handled in the same manner as all other proceedings. It makes life more complicated for the average citizen to do it. The usage of attorneys is prohibited, because while it is common for a prosecutor to defend you in a civil claims trial, the defendant cannot assert the expense of hiring a counsel from a losing group. An alternative to using a lawyer is to have a 'lay representative,' that is a non-legally qualified person, to help put your case.

Small claims lawsuits used to be tried in secret, but they are now considered in court following the Woolf amendments. The protocol also requires the District Judge to be creative with the manner he handles the appeal, but the method is no longer as casual as under the former framework. District Judges are urged to be more inquisitorial and to understand how to work with civil claims litigation so that they take an active interest in the process, raise questions, and ensure that the sides clarify all their key points.

3.6.2     Advantages Of Small Claims

1.  The cost of taking proceedings is low.

2.  If you lose, you will not have to pay the other person's lawyers' costs.

3.  People do not have to use lawyers, but can take the case themselves.

4.  The procedure is quicker than for other cases. In 2011 it took 30 weeks from the issue of a claim to the hearing, compared to 56 weeks for other cases.

5.  The District Judge should help the parties to explain their case.

3.6.3     Disadvantages Of Small Claims

1.  For cases over £1,500, a small allocation fee has to be paid.

2.  Legal funding for paying for a lawyer is not available, though it may be possible to fund the case through a 'no win, no fee' (see Chapter 19).

3.  Where the other side is a business, they are more likely to use a lawyer. This can put an unrepresented claimant at a disadvantage.

4.  Research by John Baldwin has shown that District Judges are not always very helpful to unrepresented claimants.

5. Even when you win your case, it does not mean that you will get your money from the defendant. Only about 60 percent of successful claimants actually received all the money awarded by the court.

3.7        County Court

•  There are about 230 County Courts so that most major towns will have a court. The courts can try nearly all civil cases. The main types of cases are:

•  All contract and tort claims

•  All cases for the recovery of land

•  Disputes over partnerships, trusts, and inheritance up to a value of £30,000.

For a fact, several local courts have the authority to consider cases of divorce, bankruptcies, low-level disputes for instances of admiralty and issues under the Race Relations Act 1976. Remember that the Crimes and Courts Bill 2012 calls for the creation of a new Family Court. All family matters currently dealt with in the County Court will be eventually transferred to this new court.

The County Court can try small claims, fast-track, and multi-track cases, and its workload is much greater than the High Court. In 2011 just over 1.5 million cases were started in the County Courts, including small claims.

In light of the vast overall amount of allegations produced, only a relatively limited percentage of lawsuits ultimately go to court. Just 15,941 fast-track or multi-track lawsuits were heard in County Courts in 2011. In addition, there were 36,719 cases dealt with by the small claims track.

Cases will nearly all be considered in the general court, and representatives of the public are allowed to attend. The entire process is more structured, and often witnesses and suspects may be served, typically by a judge, though often without a prosecutor. The winner of the case could assert damages, including the costs of legal counsel. All of which renders the lawsuit even more costly in the Circuit Court than in the case of civil claims. John Baldwin's study showed that 40% of people in the local County Court deemed it to be a 'inappropriate and unnecessarily wasteful form of settling' a conflict.

The Government Consultation Paper, Settling Cases in the County Court (2011), indicated that the expense of a lawsuit was always greater than the sum reported for lower-level lawsuits.

Cases are tried by Circuit Courts, but it is scarcely necessary for a panel of eight to meet with a defendant.

3.8     Fast-Track Cases

Claims on the scale of £ 5,000 to £ 25,000 required a quicker and simpler way of coping with them. In 1998, before the Woolf amendments, figures for the year indicate that the total processing period for lawsuits in the County Court was 85 weeks from the date of the filing of the petition until the final hearing in the trial. As well as complications, the situations were too costly. Indeed, the Woolf Study showed that the expense of cases was always higher than the sum reported.

As a consequence of that, a revolutionary fast-track concept was implemented. When a lawsuit has been decided, the District Judge may submit the distribution request to the County Court and then make a determination as to whether the dispute is eligible for a swift trial. Personal injuries and accommodation incidents in excess of £ 1,000 and up to £ 25,000 are also classified as fast-track events.

The quick track indicates that the court must set a very tight timeline for the pre-trial hearings. This is meant to discourage either of both parties from losing resources and building up excessive expenses. After a case has been identified for a trial, the goal is to get the case considered within 30 weeks. The new timetables also significantly reduced delays. For 2011, it took 56 weeks to wait from the question of the lawsuit until the tribunal. This is a seven-month increase on the pre-Wolf age.  However, the cumulative duration of 56 weeks is also a long period to wait for prosecution on what is supposed to be a fast-track event. The main jury will typically be held by the Circuit Judge and will take place in the open court in a more structured process than in the case of civil claims. In order to speed up the trial process, the hearing will be restricted to a period of one day, and the number of expert witnesses will be reduced, with normally just one specialist permitted.

3.9     Multi-Track Cases

Claims with greater than £ 25,000 are typically distributed on a multi-track system. When the dispute has been taken to the County Court, it is expected to be heard there, but it can be appealed to the Supreme Court, in particular with cases costing more than £ 50,000. The case will be heard by a Circuit Judge who will also be expected to 'manage' the case from the moment it is allocated to the multi-track route. The judge can set timetables. It is even possible to ask the parties to try an alternative method of dispute resolution in an effort to prevent waste of costs.

3.10         High Court

The High Court is based in London but it has judges in 26 towns and communities throughout England and Wales. This has the authority to prosecute every criminal lawsuit and has three sections, one of which specializes in handling other kinds of litigation. These sections include the Queen's Bench Division, the Chancery Division and the Community Section.

3.10.1  Queen's Bench Division

The President of the Queen's Bench Court is the Lord Chief Justice, and there are over 70 judges in the court. It deals with contract and tort cases where the amount sought is over £ 50,000; however, as stated earlier in this portion, the defendant may bring an action for any amount of £ 25,000 or more. Only multi-track proceedings will be dealt with by the High Court. In fact, some forms of intervention are deemed to be more suitable for the High Court than for the County Trial. Normally trials are heard before a single judge, although there is a claim to a jury trial for bribery, libel, defamation, unfair persecution, and false incarceration. There should be 12 jurors while a jury is included.

The High Court trials are costly and will take a long time. The total time between the filing of a lawsuit and the jury is about three years. Cases are costly owing to the requirement to hire prosecutors and even owing to legal costs. As well as costs for lodging a petition and other early steps, there is a court charge of £ 1,090.

3.10.2 Commercial Court

That is a special court that is part of the Queen's Bench Section. This court has specialist judges familiar with insurance, finance, and other legal issues, such as the concerns with Lloyd's 'tags' and damages incurred by major insurance lawsuits. A simpler speedier method is used in this court, and the argument can be based on photographic testimony.

3.10.3 Admiralty Court

The Admiralty Court frequently deals with ships and addresses issues such as lawsuits for loss incurred by accident at sea. It also addresses lawsuits about recovery privileges after a ship has sunk or is stranded. The judge in the Admiralty Court sits with two lay assessors who are selected from the Masters of the Trinity House and who are there to advise the judge on the matters of seamanship and navigation.

The Infrastructure and Development Court was also set up in 1998 to carry on what had been considered the Formal Referee's Case. This court deals with any litigation in the Chancery or Queen's Bench Division containing technologically challenging problems, such as building and infrastructure conflicts or litigation over computers.

3.10.4 Judicial Review

The Queen's Bench Division also has significant supervisory powers over lower courts and other decision-making entities, such as cabinet officials or city councils. The judicial examination examines that the policy-making procedure has been carried out lawfully, as distinct from the validity of the case in question.

3.10.5     Chancery Division

The leader of the branch is the Chancellor of the High Court. There are around 17 High Court Judges in the district. The primary activity of this section includes conflicts related to insolvency, with both corporations and persons, the regulation of leases, conflicts related to trust rights, copyright and trademarks, intellectual property issues, and the contested probate proceedings. There is also a separate business court in the area, which deals primarily with breaking up businesses.

Juries shall never be included in the Chancery Section, and proceedings shall be handled by a single judge. Criticisms of costs and delays which relate to the Queen's Bench Division often refer to the Chancery Division.

3.10.6     Family Division

The President shall be the head of that division, and 19 High Court Judges shall be appointed to that section. It has the authority to prosecute cases pertaining to child care and other proceedings related to children under the 1989 Children Act. It also deals with certain family problems, such as the declaration of nullity of marriage, and the awarding of probate in non- probate situations.

Events are decided by a single judge, and while the jury was previously required to prosecute divorce proceedings, the jury is not usually included in this section.

Remember that the Crimes and Courts Bill 2012 calls for the creation of a new Family Court.

4. The Woolf Reforms

The present system of civil justice is based on the reforms recommended by Lord Woolf in his report, Access to Justice (1996).

In 1995 Lord Woolf stated that a civil justice system should:

Be just in the results it delivers.

Be fair in the way it treats litigants.

Offer appropriate procedures at a reasonable cost.

Deal with cases at a reasonable speed.

Be understandable to those who use it.

Provide as much certainty as the nature of particular cases allows.

Be effective, adequately resourced, and organized.

The report found that virtually none of these points was being achieved in the civil courts, and criticized the system for being unequal, expensive, slow, uncertain, and complicated. The report contained 303 recommendations. The most important ones proposed:

Extending small claims up to £3,000 (from the then limit of £1,000).

A fast track for straightforward cases up to £10,000.

A multi-track for cases over £10,000, with the capping of costs.

Encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution.

Giving judges more responsibility for managing cases.

More use of information technology.

Simplifying documents and procedures and having a single set of rules governing proceedings in both the High Court and the County Court.

Shorter timetables for cases to reach court and for lengths of trials.

The suggestion to raise the cap on small claims to GBP 3,000 was made before the final report was released. Until committing itself to the majority of the legislation, the Labor Government, which came to power in 1997, ordered the Middleton Report as a 'second opinion.' It opposed much of the Woolf measures but proposed that the small claims cap would be extended to £ 5,000 and the fast-track path to £ 15,000 (which has subsequently been raised to £ 25,000). In April 1999, the criminal justice structure was significantly changed as a part of the Woolf and Middleton studies.

4.1     The Civil Procedure Rules

Revised laws of civil procedure have been put into force since 26 April 1999. We use a far clearer vocabulary than the prior laws. They also even modified the language used in court trials. For starters, someone beginning a civil lawsuit is often named 'the complainant;' historically, the word used in most situations was 'the petitioner.' The paper used to start lawsuits is a petition form, not a writ or a summons. The latest words are included in this document, but the old definitions also exist in the records of cases resolved prior to April 1999.

Overriding Objective

Rule 1.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that the overriding objective is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. This means that courts should try to:

Ensure that the parties, in any case, are on an equal footing.

Save expense.

Deal with cases in a way which is proportionate to:

the amount involved (that avoids the costs of the case being more than the amount claimed)

the importance of the case (for example, is there a major point of law involved?)

the complexity of the issues in the case.

Ensure that the case is dealt with quickly and fairly.

Allocate an appropriate share of the court's resources (so smaller claims do not take up more time than they justify).

Judges now have greater power over the trial than ever. They should establish timetables to ensure that the parties do not needlessly stretch the case out. Law 1.4 of the Laws of Civil Procedure specifies the 'successful case handling' by judges includes:

Identifying the issues at an early stage.

Deciding which issues need investigation and trial.

Encouraging the parties to use alternative dispute resolution if this is apropriate.

Dealing with any procedural steps without the need for the parties to attend court.

Giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently.

4.2     Applying The Rules In Court

Case management has contributed to quicker recognition of the problems in litigation, ensuring that further disputes are settled without the requirement for a jury. For several instances, judges have stayed on the court for negotiations. The usage of alternative conflict resolution (Arr) has been allowed by the courts to make expense decisions against anyone that unreasonably fails to pursue the Arr.

The judges even specifically enforce the timetables. This is illustrated by Vinos v Marks and Spencer plc (2000). In this scenario, the claimants had made the lawsuit just during the time period and only informed the defendant's insurance that they had done so. They were, however, nine days late in making the allegation on the defendant

4.3     Effect Of The Woolf Reforms

In 2005, The Management of Civil Cases: The Courts and the Post-Woolf World, by Professors Peysner and Seneviratne of the Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent was released by the then Lord Chancellor's Department. The impact of the Woolf reforms was regarded.

The findings were that:

The culture of litigation had changed for the better, with cooperation between the parties improving.

There were mixed views over whether the delay had been reduced.

Case management conferences were felt to be one of the major successes of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

There was a more uniform procedure across the country

There was a very high rate of settlement, often more than 60 percent, and in some courts over 80 percent.

Part 36 process and sanctions attached to it were found to be effective, although it was felt to be too complicated and difficult to explain to the client.

There was little or no increase in ADR and out-of-court mediation: in practice, judges rarely stay cases for mediation, and ADR had not become incorporated into the court process.

Costs increased overall as a result of the CPR and the front-loading of costs, with costs in fast-track cases being disproportionate.

The courts were still under-resourced and the IT systems'  primitive' compared with those used by practitioners.

In 2011, the government stated in its briefing report, Solving Disputes in the County Court, that it was 15 years since the Woolf Report and the framework could not maintain up with the 'significant economic and social changes that have taken place since then.' We agree that the mechanism has to rely primarily on conflict settlement and debt repayment than on the principles of 'justice.' In fact, they found out that the costs of taking a lawsuit to a trial are sometimes higher than the sum stated. Ideally, disputes are:

'should be resolved in the most appropriate forum, so that processes and costs are commensurate with the complexity of the issues involved.'

They proposed a range of options to achieve this, including:

Fixed costs (already used for traffic accidents under £10,000) to be extended to other personal injury claims for up to £25,000 or even


Requiring all cases below the small claims limit to have attempted settlement by mediation, before being considered for a hearing.

Introducing mediation information/assessment sessions for claims above the small claims limit to try to divert more cases into alternative dispute resolution.

Increasing the upper level for small claims to at least £10,000.

5. Appellate Courts

Those are the courts that hear the appeals of the lower courts. The key courts of appeal include the Divisional Courts, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords.

5.1     Divisional Courts

Every section of the High Court includes what is called the Divisional Court, which has the authority to consider appeals from lower courts and tribunals. In certain cases, two to three of the judges in the same division will work together and consider the argument.

Queen's Bench Divisional Court

The most important of the Divisional Courts is the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. This has two main functions:

It hears appeals by way of case stated from criminal cases decided in the

Magistrates' Court. This is dealt with more fully later.

Each has supervisory authority over lower courts and tribunals, as well as over the acts and judgments of state authorities and cabinet officials.

This procedure is known as 'judiciary examination' and, for this reason, the court has the authority to impose what is regarded as 'prerogative orders.' Such directives are a compulsory order, which is an order to fulfill a duty; a prohibitive order, which is an order to preclude a lower court from considering a dispute that it has little authority to contend with; and a quashing order, which excludes a ruling from the Queen's Bench Division so that the lawfulness of the judgment can be checked and the ruling quashed if determined to be unconstitutional.The Queen's Bench Divisional Court also considers habeas corpus appeals by people who say that they are illegally imprisoned. This is an effective step to defend the right to democracy.

5.2 Chancery Divisional Court

This involves only a limited number of appeals, in particular the rulings of the Tax Commissions on the collection of taxes and the appeals of judgments of the County Court in situations of bankruptcy.

5.3 Family Divisional Court

The main function of this court is to hear appeals from the decisions of the magistrates regarding family matters and orders affecting children.

5.4     Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)

The Court of Appeal was created under the Judicature Act 1873 and was originally meant to be the last court of appeal. Nevertheless, the status of the House of Lords as the last appeal court was established by the Appeal Jurisdiction Act 1876. The Court of Appeal currently has two parts, civil and judicial. There are 38 Lords of Appeals, and each section is led by its own member. The Civil Division is the primary court of appeal for civil litigation, which is managed by the Master of the Rolls.

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) mainly hears appeals from the following courts:

all three divisions of the High Court

the County Court for multi-track cases

the Upper Tier tribunal.

5.5 Permission To Appeal

For certain cases, the authorization to appeal is needed. This can be provided by the lower court where the action has been made or by the Court of Appeal.

Permission to appeal will only be given if the court determines whether the appeal will have a reasonable chance of success or if there was any other legitimate cause that the request would be considered.

Permission to appeal is not necessary in situations where the individual's liberty is at issue: for example, in an appeal against a jail term for violation of an injunction.

6. Supreme Court

This is the final court of appeal in the English judicial framework. This handles cases from the Court of Appeal, the Divisional Courts, and, on certain times, directly from the Supreme Court under the so-called 'leapfrog' rules. Appeals shall be heard by the Supreme Court of Judges. We will serve in an unequal jury, meaning that there could be three, five, seven, or even nine judges waiting to consider the appeal.

6.1 Permission To Appeal

The appeal from the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Courts must be issued leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This authorization can be given either by the Supreme Court or by the lower court. It is challenging to seek to leave to appeal; for example, figures for 2011 indicate that in just 48 of the 171 cases, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been issued.

In leapfrog cases filed by the High Court under the Administration of Justice Act 1969, not only does the Supreme Court give leave to appeal, but the judge must also award a certificate of satisfaction. That can only be achieved where the situation addresses a question of law of general public interest, which either requires the reading of a rule or is one where the judge is constrained by a prior ruling of the Court of Appeal or of the House of Lords / Supreme Court. It will mean that an appeal to the Court of Appeal would have little effect, as it would already be bound by the prior ruling. Leapfrog's appeals are unusual, with leave to appeal being obtained in just two to three instances per year.

However, if the requirement for permission to appeal has been met, there is a very strong probability in civil litigation that the challenge will be accepted. More than half of the cases currently considered by the Supreme Court were effective in 2011. The amount of appeals considered by the Supreme Court is limited, typically about 60 cases a year concerning civil law, with around three-quarters of them requiring legislative interpretation.

7. Appeal Routes In Civil Cases

While the specifics of the appellate courts are laid above, it is likely to be useful to provide a list of the usual appellate routes from both the County Court and the High Court.

7.1      Appeals From The County Court

From May 2000, the avenues of appeal from the County Court have been set out in Part 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It means that in general:

for fast-track cases dealt with by a District Judge the appeal is heard by a Circuit Judge. 

for fast-track cases dealt with by a Circuit Judge the appeal is heard by a High Court Judge

for final decisions in multi-track cases heard in the County Court (whether by a Circuit Judge or by a District Judge), the right of appeal is to the Court of Appeal.

7.2 Appeals From Small Claims

In October 2000, lawsuits of rulings on civil charges were made feasible. This presumption to appeal was adopted in order to conform with Article 6 (presumption to a reasonable trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellate paths are the same as the fast-track proceedings. It implies that the challenge is to the next court of the process, and if the matter has been heard before the District Judge, the challenge is to the Circuit Judge, whether the dispute has been dealt with by the Circuit Judge, the appeal is to the Supreme Court Judge.

7.3 Second Appeals

If the first appeal is considered by a District Judge or a Supreme Court Judge, a second petition can be filed in the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, that can only happen under extraordinary circumstances, as specified under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999:

'no appeal may be made to the Court of Appeal … unless the Court of Appeal considers that

(a) the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, or

(b) there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it'.

7.4     Appeals From The High Court

From a decision in the High Court, the appeal usually goes to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

In certain instances, a 'leapfrog' appeal can be taken directly to the Supreme Court under the Administration of Justice Act 1969.

Such an appeal must include a question of law of general public interest, which is either dealing with the application of a rule or which includes a legal precedent of the Court of Appeal or of the Supreme Court / House of Lords where the judge of the case will observe. In fact, the Supreme Court must grant leave to appeal.

7.5     Further Appeals

A further appeal is rendered to the Supreme Court through the judgment of the Court of Appeal, but only if the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal grants permission to appeal. It can also be remembered that the matter can be appealed to the European Court of Justice according to Article 267 of the Treaties on the Operation of the European Union if a question of European law is concerned. Any other request can be provided by an English judge.

8. Remedies In Civil Cases

8.1     Damages

The key recourse given by the judiciary is the requirement that the sum of money is charged to the complainant. It is considered a punitive settlement. The purpose of the grant of judgment in the case of a violation of the contract is to put the defendant in the same condition as much as money may do, as it should have been had the deal not been violated. It is a common purpose in the event of misconduct to put the complainant in the same condition as though the wrong had not been done. There are, of course, other cases in which cash insurance will not always account for the damage incurred by a violation of contract or a breach of contract. It refers in principle to situations where the complainant has sustained severe physical injuries and could be faced with lifelong impairment.

8.2 Special Damages

That is the word for damages that may be precisely measured. For example, in the case of a violation of neglect after a car accident, it is difficult to calculate the exact expense of fixing the vehicle, finding a driver when the vehicle is off the road, and removing broken clothes. This would, therefore, be necessary to quantify the lack of revenue that has actually happened owing to accidents, since all sick leave will be taken into consideration.

8.3 General Damages

These are for matters which can not be adequately dealt with. In serious injury situations, these may require the volume of discomfort and distress, as well as a potential reduction of earnings. This may also provide an estimate for the expense of care or any help required or for the conversion of a home to support an adult with disabilities.

8.4 Nominal Damages

If the claimant wins the case but can not assert that there has been a significant injury, it is available to the judge to offer a minor sum of money in appreciation of the violation of the claimant's interests. That typically occurs with criminal acts that are 'actionable per se,' that is 'by themselves,' or only because they have occurred. An example is the tort of trespassing on the property, where the complainant can prove that the defendant stepped through the plaintiff's field without authorization or a lawful reason. It is sufficient for the judge to award the negligible defendant damages.

8.5 Exemplary Damages

These are also called 'punitive damages,' and this is exactly what they are

Damages which are intended to punish the defendant, not merely compensate the claimant. Exemplary damages are not available for breach of contract and are only awarded in tort cases in the following situations:

Where they are authorized by statute.

Where there has been oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional action by servants of the government.

Where the defendant intended to make a profit from the tort, which would be greater than any compensation due to the tort.

Exemplary damages are very rarely awarded.

9. Equitable Remedies

We already know there are solutions that have been established by equity, and the main aspect of these solutions is that they are not granted automatically. The court has the power to determine whether or not equal compensation can be given. Major fair solutions include injunctions, reasonable compliance, termination, and rectification.


Temporary injunctions referred to as interlocutory injunctions can be issued in the context of a lawsuit. An interlocutory injunction is typically granted to attempt to maintain the status quo between the parties when the matter is pending a full jury. A final injunction can be granted towards the close of a trial if the court is convinced that the penalty will not be an effective solution.

Injunctions are seen in a variety of fields of law. For example, they can be used in contract law to avoid a potential violation of contract, in the law of misconduct to deter the occurrence of a nuisance or to limit a continuing trespass on property, in family law on regulating domestic abuse, or in civil law to prohibit public officials from behaving unlawfully. Breach of an injunction is a felony of the court, and, in serious circumstances, an individual who violates an injunction can be sent to jail.

Specific Performance

That is a solution that is found even under contract law because it is a requirement that the contract is completed as negotiated. It is given only under extraordinary cases when the court is of the view that the common law does not pay the defendant for loss in an acceptable way, for example, in the arrangement for the acquisition of property. Relevant activities are rarely given to allow anyone to conduct specific services, such as performing at a festival. Nor is it given for violation of contract when one of the parties is a minor party.


Again, this solution is not applicable in contract situations. The goal of the courts in the award of the rescission is to restore the parties as much as possible to their pre-contractual role. The primary reasons for termination include a misstatement that has caused one person to enter into a contract or an omission, which has a profound impact on the contract.


This is a court order that a document should be altered to reflect the parties' intention. The court will grant such an order only where it is satisfied that a mistake was made in drawing up the document so that it is not a true version of what the parties agreed.

10. Legal Aid 

Legal assistance may help to cover the costs of legal aid, family rehabilitation, and representation in a court or tribunal. It was planned to make justice open to everyone in the world, irrespective of how much they receive. The scheme guarantees the basic values of a free society; that all are equal before the law and have the right to a fair jury. Moreover, after the 1998 Human Rights Act, if an individual can not afford legal counsel, this may weaken their right to a fair jury, a right covered under Article 6 of the Act.

Legal assistance is generally required on all felony and civil situations. However, the breadth of the fields of legislation funded by and qualified for legal assistance has continued to expand through the decades. Both people, once they are detained and brought to a police station, are entitled to free legal counsel. Nevertheless, whether they are taken to a judge or a criminal lawsuit, it will be decided that the person is entitled to legal help. For this reason, a person must follow certain financial requirements. Only the disposable income and the discretionary capital of a household will be measured if the income of their partners is not included. When a person falls below the financial level, they would be entitled to legal assistance.

The criterion for eligibility has modified over time and therefore relies on the degree of the case. At present, if an individual's profit (earnings before tax) are higher than£2,435 in the last month, or if you have higher than £ 8,000 in discretionary resources, they would not be qualified. While the requirement for legal assistance has increased the bulk since the overhaul of the laws, the sort of situations allows one to legal help. The next article goes on with the history of legal assistance and from what it actually offers.

Before 1900, legal assistance to anyone who could not afford a lawyer had only come in the form of voluntary contributions, which were unreliable and contradictory, leaving many individuals without legal defense. In 1926, one of the pioneers of these humanitarian organizations stated that such a structure made the rule of law 'anemic attenuated make-believe that we perceive as fairness in the eyes of the weak.' However, during and after World War II, attention was given to creating a fairer community. A welfare scheme was developed and implemented by the National Social Protection Agency (NSA), and, under the Legal Advice and Assistance Act of 1949, a new centralized program of legal aid was first created. The revolutionary framework accepted that freedom of entry and the right of justice before the law was essential to a fair society. Divorce in the High Court was the first goal of the program, and, by 1950, it presented 80 percent of the community with an established right to legal assistance. Legal assistance has grown dramatically over the decades to come.

Community legal assistance was introduced in the 1960s, and in 1984 the Police and Community Proof Legislation allowed for service support systems in police stations. Law clinics have since been opened, and legal assistance for housing and job situations has also been steadily expanded. However, as the program of legal assistance expanded rapidly, the controversy around it developed more and more and was dominated by its cost. Legal assistance has been largely accessible even to people whose compensation is at the lowest point.

The next significant overhaul of the legal assistance program occurred in 1999 when the Access to Justice Act was enacted. The Act was intended to reshape the whole structure of finance and the oversight of legal assistance in order to sustain a program that has changed dramatically since its creation. The Act created the Legal Services Commission and granted it the authority to reshape legal services. That influence was strengthened in 2006 when a new ministerial position was created to overhaul legal aid. The Act provided for legal assistance, if one was financially eligible, in all criminal proceedings and in all civil litigation, except those expressly omitted. Given its attempts, the law was not adequate to regulate the cost of legal assistance. 'Cuts' to Legal Aid also been an issue and a subject of national discussion and change. Since 2009 there have been 60 years of legal assistance in the United Kingdom following the Legal Advice and Aid Act of 1949. While, in particular, 'Sixty years since the inception of legal assistance, 83% of the general population claim they have little to no understanding of the program, according to a recent analysis.' Indeed, the shift of access to justice after 1949 has been evident. However, 2013 saw yet another move contributing to more cuts in legal assistance. The Legislation on Legal Assistance, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders 2012 aimed to decrease the budget for two billion pounds of compulsory legal assistance in England and Wales by 350 million pounds a year. This reverses the situation that legal assistance had been essential for all criminal proceedings, excluding those expressly covered by the 1999 Access to Justice Act. The Act absolutely eliminated support for all aspects of civil law. It includes civil and social protection and serious injuries. A strong example of recourse to justice can be made in a divorce. One of the most commonly exploited fields of law for legal assistance since 1949 is still totally exempt under the 2012 ActOthers, such as debt, housing, and welfare problems, and citizenship is only liable even if they follow those requirements. As the preparations for the 65th anniversary of legal aid were limited: 'Although the anniversary would be a moment of joy, 600,000 individuals have lost access to civil legal aid as a consequence of changes enacted by the government in April of last year.' Today, the United Kingdom's legal aid program is under intense review as a consequence of ongoing expenditure reductions. Law Society (representing, encouraging, and helping attorneys, publicizing their special role in offering legal counsel, securing fairness for everyone, and maintaining the rule of law) addressed their questions in their general election briefs this year.   'The Law Society is aware that changes in trial costs, trial delays and reductions in legal aid are slowly eroding access to justice for common citizens in England and Wales, weakening their opportunity to practice their freedoms.' The President of the Law Society, Robert Bourns, indicated that the disaster of the Grenfell Tower was to some degree triggered by reductions in legal aid that 'might have taken place.'

As one examines the history of legal aid and its growth to date, it is impossible to overlook the reality that change seems to be linear and reverts back to 1949. As the Bott and CO Enforcement Squad. Solicitors comment: 'The weakest of society are likely to fail to obtain legal help as individuals may not be willing to afford legal services.' This addresses the idea that a program intended to help those who use it desperately is the very structure that will actually prohibit certain individuals from getting access to legal security. Individuals that now and again have to focus on charity and NGO support to obtain the legal help they require.

These are the only possible questions that can be asked in the paper. Ensure that you do not leave the appeals, ADR and legal aid since they are tested the most. Do not try attempting this question if you are not sure that you know all the above mentioned concepts. Commentary in this question would be much less since there is a lot of material that you will be assessed upon. Moreover, make sure you answer this question strategically as it has a lot of steps and some steps have loop holes like the leap frog appeal. Make a mind map if you wish to attempt this question. 

© 2020 O’Level Academy. All Rights Reserved