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