Access to justice in the UK is mostly a pipe dream for the ordinary person

[heisenberg]

I am feeling very disillusioned with the justice system in the UK.

You can't even bring a claim valued at £1,000 to the county court without risking the case being allocated to the multi-track, which, of course, means that you could end up paying around £100,000 or more in costs if you lose, not to mention all the work involved.

Things are arguably even worse in terms of judicial review proceedings - if you try and hold a public body to account, you could also end up paying around £150,000 or more in costs if you lose, not to mention all the work involved. Public bodies know this all too well, and, knowing this, are happy to conduct themselves in an extremely unethical manner.

No judge is infallible, so one always takes a profound risk when litigating.

In terms of claiming damages for psychiatric injury alone, you have got no hope due to the state of the law, and the inherent difficulties with those kinds of claims. I believe most, if not all, solicitors would never run a claim for psychiatric injury alone as a result. This, of course, means the NHS gets away with murder, which I suspect it is very happy about, as with our Tory government.

Legal aid has been pretty much desecrated due to Tory policy.

In my honest opinion and experience, legal expenses insurance is more of a hindrance than a help, not least because insurance companies are businesses who will readily find ways not to support a proposed claim, and to keep their costs as low as possible. Let's face it, it is not hard to undermine the merits of a proposed claim if there is a will to do so. Moreover, cover of about £50,000 to £100,000 doesn't get you very far, especially if that is meant to cover the costs both parties incur, so you take a profound risk there too. In my honest opinion, my legal expenses insurer did something that was extremely unethical too - it instructed a barrister on a completely covert basis such that I couldn't bring a professional negligence claim against that individual, or even raise a concern with the Bar Standards Board and/or the Legal Ombudsman (not that I have much confidence in those organisations).

And if you suffer from debilitating health problems, and you have no access to a supportive solicitor, you are completely scuppered.

As if things aren't bad enough, I see the Tories are now even trying to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, even after the Supreme Court quashed the previous charging regime as unlawful:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/go...118582.article

[atticus]

I hope that in the second paragraph you intended to say £10,000 and not £1,000. If I am mistaken, please explain your reasons.

[heisenberg]

I hope that in the second paragraph you intended to say £10,000 and not £1,000. If I am mistaken, please explain your reasons.

No, I definitely intended to say £1,000. The problem lies within CPR 26.13 in that cases with complicated facts, law or evidence, or cases that have many witnesses giving evidence (I imagine any more than 2 or 3 is going to cause major problems), are almost certainly going to end up on the fast track or multi-track. Sadly, vey low value claims sometimes involve complex issues, lots of material, and long-lasting cross examination (lasting more than an hour or two in total). I have heard of fairly straightforward cases, albeit insofar as the facts were concerned, and low value claims, such as Paulley v Firstgroup Plc, ending up on the multi-track. In that case, it may be that the judge considered that the respective law was too complex for the small claims track.

It doesn't end there sadly, because if one alleges dishonesty (of any kind), a low value claim probably won't be allocated to the small claims track (PD 26 para 15(4)). Not quite sure as to the reasons behind that.

I really think the CPR should change such that small claims hearings are given a full day of court time, and all claims valued under £10,000 should automatically be allocated to the small claims track, as the current rules genuinely deter people with reasonable claims from accessing justice. We only need to look at what tribunal fees did to deter people from bringing employment tribunal claims. I think the numbers dropped by around 67%.

Personally, if I had a claim valued at £1,000 with good prospects of success, I wouldn't risk it due to the real risk of astronomical costs, which could easily ruin someone financially for the rest of their lives.

[atticus]

I suspect that there is a particular case behind all this. What you say will not apply to the vast majority of cases where the amount at stake is less than £10,000.

[heisenberg]

I suspect that there is a particular case behind all this. What you say will not apply to the vast majority of cases where the amount at stake is less than £10,000.

I had a discussion with a solicitor who specialises in helping litigants in person, and she advised me that one of my cases, which was valued at less than £10,000, would almost certainly be allocated to the fast track or multi-track due to fact that my particulars were about 8 pages long.

If what you say is true, how can one be certain that a case will not be one of the few that do not get allocated to the small claims track? Sadly, one simply cannot be certain, and therein lies the problem.

Things get worse too, as the 'no costs' rule only applies once the case has been allocated to the small claims track. If applications etc. are made before allocation, they are potentially subject to a costs order.

[atticus]

There are always exceptional hard cases. Most small claims do not require 8 pages of particulars of claim.

[heisenberg]

There are always exceptional hard cases. Most small claims do not require 8 pages of particulars of claim.

It was an Equality Act 2010 claim, and unfortunately those are notoriously fact sensitive, and those are exactly the types of claims that litigants in person should be able to litigate on their own without risking being financially ruined for life. Indeed, one is able to bring an Equality Act 2010 claim of equal value, and even much more valuable, in an employment tribunal, and not face such a profound risk.

[atticus]

As I said, an exceptional case. You should not try to extrapolate from your one single case to conclude that your experience applies to all.

Our justice system certainly has its problems. but the problems that you have experienced are not the problems everyone experiences.

[heisenberg]

As I said, an exceptional case. You should not try to extrapolate from your one single case to conclude that your experience applies to all.

Our justice system certainly has its problems. but the problems that you have experienced are not the problems everyone experiences.

We still come back to the problem of not being able to predict with absolute certainty what a judge is going to decide in terms of track allocation. I'm not sure as to what the statistics are, but claims valued at £10,000 or less may be allocated to tracks other than the small claims track more often than both of us realise.

I think every litigant in person is at a profound disadvantage when bringing, or seeking to bring, proceedings in the county court and high court for obvious reasons. I also believe employment tribunals often treat litigants in person with disdain, perhaps at a subconscious level, and that effects their decision-making. I suspect the same probably applies in the county court and high court, and possibly more so. Sadly, judges are far from infallible. Just look at this recent news article:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ow/ar-BB1k02qX

[atticus]

In most cases it can be predicted with certainty. You continue to try to extract general principles from your unusual case.

[heisenberg]

In most cases it can be predicted with certainty. You continue to try to extract general principles from your unusual case.

Whilst I respect your opinion, as well as being thankful for it, I feel I have to disagree; the reason being I feel that there are no certainties and guarantees when litigating. One could opine that a straightforward claim valued at £10,000 or less is likely going to allocated to the small claims track, but there always remains the possibility that it won't be. Moreover, if a case is allocated to the small claims track, one of the parties could easily apply for it to be allocated to a different track, and they could well be successful in that application.

[HariSeldon]

a straightforward claim valued at £10,000 or less is likely going to allocated to the small claims track, but there always remains the possibility that it won't be.

Noting that you've already moved the goalposts by switching from £1,000 to £10,000... as Atticus has already said, "particulars were about 8 pages long" is highly unlikely to be a straightforward claim so you are comparing apples with oranges anyway.

I've used the UK justice system a number of times over the last 30 years, have always represented myself, have always found it cheap and accessible and so far have always come out on top so I don't recognise your blanket assertion in the slightest.