Justice for All: Litigants' Resources (Hansard, 7 July 1999)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
My Lords, I am afraid that, across the whole of life, superior resources can secure advantages over those who are not well off. The legal system is no exception. However, the 872 reformed legal system that I am trying to deliver aims to prevent litigants with superior resources gaining unfair advantages in litigation. That is a major objective of the new unified Court Procedure Rules, which require judges to ensure that cases are conducted in a manner proportionate to the issues in dispute and the means of both parties.

§ Lord Harris of High Cross
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. The Question occurred to me some weeks ago when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in announcing limits to trial by jury said, when speaking about the present arrangements: Delay pollutes the system".—[Official Report, 19/5/99; col. 363.] Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, characterised as "manipulation of the system" for the purposes of delay does not apply only to remand prisoners electing for trial in the Crown Court? Will he acknowledge that such "manipulation of the system" can also arise in civil cases, and in higher courts, where a wealthy litigant can "prolong interlocutory proceedings"—I believe that is the phrase—in order to delay the full trial of an action, with the effect, if not the intention, of exhausting the resources of a poorer litigant?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the most fundamental change brought about by the recent civil justice reforms is the introduction of active case management by the judges, with timetables set and policed by the courts. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, namely, that the civil system can be sought to be manipulated in the same way as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn acknowledged the criminal system could be. But the object of active case management is to prevent that happening. The court can, and should, apply strict sanctions for non-compliance with its timetabling orders; for example, it can strike out a statement of case or order costs against a non-compliant party. The financially stronger party will no longer be able to dictate the pace of litigation.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware how very welcome and encouraging his answers to this important Question have been? Further, will he concede that it is possible to take early action as regards this abuse of proceedings whereby very rich men can exhaust the resources of those much poorer than themselves?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, one of the objects of "hands-on" case management by judges is that it will deal directly with that situation. It is intended to bear down firmly on the twin evils of the law, which are excessive delay and excessive cost. This really puts the judges on trial to make case management work and deliver. However, I acknowledge that it requires a substantial culture change and a judicial determination 873 to impose tough sanctions to ensure that timetables are strictly observed and that unnecessary procedures are not indulged in for reasons of forensic advantage.

§ Lord Hoyle
My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, may be referring to is an action of defamation in which a wealthy individual, the defendant, appears to grind down a plaintiff of more modest means. Can my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor say whether the law in any way assists a plaintiff of modest means to bring or defend an action of defamation?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, that is a very particular question in relation to defamation. I know not whether the noble Lord who tabled this Question had in mind an action of defamation, but I can appreciate that in an action of defamation a wealthy defendant could seek to manipulate the system so as to grind down the plaintiff. As I say, case management is now designed to prevent that. Of course, the legal costs of bringing or defending defamation actions are high. I intend to bring into force early next year an important provision of the Defamation Act 1996 to help those of modest means involved in defamation proceedings. There will be a new summary procedure. This will enable a judge to decide a case—where the defendant has no reasonable prospect of success whatsoever—without a jury and to decide it without the high costs of a long-drawn-out litigation. The remedies include an order that the defendant publish a suitable correction and apology and pay compensation of up to £10,000. Defendants of modest means will also benefit from this procedure because a judge can strike out a hopeless claim; that is, one where there is no reasonable prospect of success.

§ Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that his proposals to remove legal aid from personal injury actions permit wealthy insurance companies to grind down their opponents and that they have shifted the balance in favour of the insurance companies when personal injury actions are brought'

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I do not accept that. I have to say to the noble Lord—as I think I have said to him before during our debates on the Access to Justice Bill—that this Government won the general election on a pledge that they would heat schools and hospitals as their major spending priorities. We did not pledge that legal aid should be our number one spending priority. Lawyers who have vested interests in maintaining the slack old ways of conventional legal aid will simply have to learn to live with that fact. Most personal injury cases which are worth while can be funded perfectly well through conditional fee agreements provided by the private sector. Scarce public funds should not be allocated to funding cases which can be effectively pursued by other means.