English Legal System UK Civil Legal Process

Question: To be acceptable to ordinary people, I believe [the] legal process in litigation must be designed to encourage, first, settlement by agreement; secondly, open and speedy trial if agreement is not forthcoming. In other words. Justice, not truth is its purpose. It is against criteria of justice and fairness that the system must be assessed. (Lord Scarman) Critically assess the UKs civil legal process. Answer: English Legal System The legal system of every country promises justice to be delivered accurately and quickly. Every person who has suffered physically, economically or mentally approaches the Court of law in its country that guarantees the sufferer or the injured a promise of redressal of his sufferings. As the citizen of the country believes in its justice system and the rule of law, they refrain from taking the law into their hands and believe that justice will be delivered to them some day from the Courts following the adequate rule of law. Therefore, the judicial system of every country has the responsibility to assure inexpensive and quick ways to deliver justice to the citizen of its country without losing the real essence of justice, which includes fairness, unbiased outlook and equality before the law. Thus, the judicial system in the United Kingdom encourages settlement between parties by agreement and speedy trial in case settlement by agreement is not possible. Many disputes that are heard before the Courts get settled before the Courts can believe its final judgement and many disputes are settled between parties before the disputes even come before the Courts. Therefore, the Courts are rapidly encouraging settlement by agreement, as its a faster and a more efficient way of dispute resolution. The Courts go ahead also to include penalties for parties who are not willing to readily follow the said approach of dispute resolution by making them liable for costs of the proceedings which would be allocated to the other party in case of settlement by agreement. Settlement by agreement is an agreement to bring to an end any dispute between two parties by mutual consent following the principle of good faith. The same is an amicable mode of resolving disputes and ending the litigation process between parties or preventing the same. It is become a part of public policy in the United Kingdom to encourage settlement by agreement. In the judgement of the case M. H. Detrick Co v Century Indem Co 299 Ill. App 3d 620 the Court stated that Courts will encourage settlement by agreement and the same will be given full effect. Settlement of any dispute by agreement is permitted before the initiation of court proceedings and during the court proceeding before the courts judgement. Usually, the format of these agreements is in the form of a Consent Order that is in writing which can be enforced if required. In case, of a settlement by agreement, the Consent Form take the place of a Courts Judgement which can be enforced and executed by either f the parties and which includes the order as to which party is liable to bear the costs. Some parties adopt the Tomlin order to settle their disputes, which includes consent order along with an attached schedule to it. The primary feature of Tomlin order is that it permits the parties to include such terms in the order, which even the Court, is not authorised to allow. The most significant reform in settlement by agreements is the provision of Part 36 offer in Civil Procedure regulations in the United Kingdom. The Part 35 offer in the United Kingdom deals with rules that govern the manner in which Courts settle disputes by agreements. It is open to both the parties to a dispute to make a Part 36 offer. If an offer under this section is made by the defendant and the claimant refuses to accept the same, and then claimant will be liable to pay a portion of defendants cost if the sum that is awarded by the court in the final judgement less than what the defendant offered to pay. The same principle will apply in reverse. However, the same will be awarded only when certain formalities as to the said offer is fulfilled. One such formality is that the offer should be open for the other partys acceptance for at least 21 days. It is in the parties favour to make a tempting offer to another party for settlement of disputes and avoid inexpensive litigation. Ho wever, offers made with terms, which are not satisfactory, are allowed to be ignored. Every party before it decides to file a suit in the Court hires an attorney. Therefore, it becomes the duty of the attorney to advice its client on the availability of the option to settle by agreement and assure their clients that it is readily encouraged and accepted by Courts as a means to solve disputes. One primary advantage of this mode of dispute resolution is that the process to attain justice is speedy and inexpensive which every common person in the country is convinced to follow. However, when the parties to a dispute are not ready to accept the settlement by agreement approach to solving disputes, the second option available before the Courts to deliver adequate and quick justice is a speedy trial of the dispute. Many a time, a person may take law in his own hands committing crimes to punish someone after suffering from the said person. However, if the individual is convinced that the regular system in the country can provide him a better and a quicker means to punish his offender, he will opt for the judicial way to punish his offender that will in return eliminate crimes that occur to punish wrongdoers. Therefore, speedy litigation is a key to this problem. On October 1, 2015, the Courts in the United Kingdom came up with a scheme called one-year litigation target. This scheme was enforced to encourage quick and speedy trials. This scheme proposed to end or conclude a case within ten months from the date the case was brought before the court. In case, a dispute between parties cannot be settled by agreement, the Court will adopt the principles of the said scheme to conclude quickly any dispute brought before it. Judgement in this scheme is said to be delivered within six weeks after the trial is completed. For the citizen of the country to adopt the legal way to fight every dispute amongst them, they need to respect the judicial system of the country, which is only possible when the same is favourable and quick. Thus, settlement of disputes by agreement and a speedy trial in case agreement settlement is not materialised will only increase the respect of judiciary in the eye of a common person. Reference List Greene, H., 2015. Undead Laws: The Use of Historically Unenforced Criminal Statutes in Non-Criminal Litigation.Yale Law Policy Review,16(1), p.5. Hanretty, C., 2013. The decisions and ideal points of British Law Lords.British Journal of Political Science,43(03), pp.703-716. Huxley-Binns, R. and Martin, J., 2014.Unlocking the English legal system. Routledge. Kas, B., 2015. European Union Litigation.European Review of Contract Law,11(1), pp.51-75. Martin, J., 2013.The English Legal System, eBook ePub. Hachette UK. Sime, S., 2013.A practical approach to civil procedure. Oxford University Press. Terrill, R.J., 2012.World criminal justice systems: A comparative survey. Routledge. Varney, M. ed., 2010.The European Union Legal Order After Lisbon. Kluwer Law International. Martin, J., 2013.The English Legal System, eBook ePub. Hachette UK. Varney, M. ed., 2010.The European Union Legal Order After Lisbon. Kluwer Law International. Terrill, R.J., 2012.World criminal justice systems: A comparative survey. Routledge. Sime, S., 2013.A practical approach to civil procedure. Oxford University Press. Hanretty, C., 2013. The decisions and ideal points of British Law Lords.British Journal of Political Science,43(03), pp.703-716. Greene, H., 2015. Undead Laws: The Use of Historically Unenforced Criminal Statutes in Non-Criminal Litigation.Yale Law Policy Review,16(1), p.5. Huxley-Binns, R. and Martin, J., 2014.Unlocking the English legal system. Routledge. Kas, B., 2015. European Union Litigation.European Review of Contract Law,11(1), pp.51-75.