Liverpool Law January 2014 January 2014 | Page 12

Judges’ Question Time 12 Local News This month we include the questions and responses to the Chancery topics 1. Case management by a High Court Judge or s.9 Judge has been commonplace in the TCC for a very long time, but the concept of full docketing (i.e. case management by the trial Judge from start to finish) in Chancery matters is only now receiving attention as part and parcel of Lord Justice Briggs’ Chancery Modernisation Review (Provisional Report – July 2013) - isn’t the case for full docketing virtually irresistible, or is the problem simply one of resources? The practice of the courts in Manchester and Liverpool is that any case with a value in excess of £500,000 will be considered for judicial case management, as has been indicated on two separate occasions at Chancery Court User Committee meetings in the recent past. Anyone who considers that a case may be appropriate for judicial case management should so indicate when issuing the proceedings, and the case will be referred to a s. 9 judge for consideration of that issue. Not every case will be appropriate for judicial case management even though it passes the value threshold (e.g. property cases). Cases that are listed before s. 9 judges for interim relief are also considered for judicial case management at that stage as a matter of course. 2. In his Provisional Report, Lord Justice Briggs indicates that consideration should be given to reducing the number of Chancery DJs in some regional trial centres so as to increase the Chancery element in their respective workloads and improve their specialist skills. Is this the way forward? Aren’t there some types of case (e.g. applications under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975 when the Court needs to consider the divorce analogy under s.3 (2)) where it is actually of considerable advantage to have a DJ who is dual ticketed (i.e. Chancery and Family)? Encouraging specialisation is the way forward so I agree with this suggestion. Liverpool has had "ticketed" Chancery DJs for some years now and each spends at least 25% of sitting time doing Chancery work. The suggestion of reducing the number of Chancery DJs has already been put into effect in Liverpool where no DJ was nominated to replace DJ Smedley when he retired, leaving Chancery work concentrated in the hands of 3 (rather than 4) Specialist Chancery DJs. The move generally is towards specialism; but there is still a large volume of work (housing, fast track claims, small claims, debt work etc) which has to be shared out amongst the DJs and which does not fit into ticketing So far as Inheritance Act claims are concerned, as is made clear in the HartLloyd guidelines, these are not generally considered suitable for trial by a s. 9 Chancery Judge because they seldom raise specialist Chancery issues, and because of the other considerable demands upon their time; and there are now no other CJs in Liverpo