COURT WATCH: DON’T SUFFER IN SILENCE: REPORT CANCELLATIONS AND LISTING ISSUES HERE
There have been constant, and consistent, grumblings on social media about problems with court listing. Cases are cancelled at the last moment. Courts are overbooked. There appears to be no, or very little, thought given to the expense involved and the inconvenience caused to litigants (and lawyers). So I have been thinking about, and encouraged, to form a central page for litigators (and litigants) to report problems with listing. These issues, and decisions, are usually “private” in that decisions are made that only the parties know about. For this to work I need input from every branch of the profession and in every area of practice – not just civil. The aim is to promote an informed debate on this issue, and to publicise a problem that appears to be endemic.
You can use the comments on the bottom of this blog or the #courtlisting hashtag on Twitter.
The point (or the aim) is to improve and not just to complain. If there are areas of good practice we need to know about them – in particular how it works.
For the avoidance of doubt I am interested in listing issues across all areas of practice, civil, criminal, family and tribunals.
I am also interested in cases where people have been successful in obtaining compensation from the courts service. This is sometimes mentioned but never reported.
CONSULTATION
Penelope Gibbs
HMCTS asking your views re listings https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-court-tribunal-estate/ … PLEASE respond even if you only answer question 6 “What are your views on our approach to people and systems? How do we best engage with the widest possible range of users as we develop scheduling and listing systems?”
KEY POINTS
- I am interested in all issues relating to listing. Not just cancellations but the double-booking of cases. Also cases where the court has listed a hearing and totally ignored the time estimate of the parties. (Those cases where the venue switches to 100’s of miles away are also of interest).
- Give as much, or as little, information as you feel able to. I am particularly interested in issues relating to the inconvenience of the parties and the additional expense involved.
- As I have said I welcome contributions from all areas of practice.
- The examples can be put in the comments section of the blog below. I will undertake some “curating” and add these to the blog under distinct headings.
- The point (or the aim) is to improve and not just to complain. If there are areas of good practice we need to know about them – in particular how it works.
- If anyone responsible for listing ones to make comments about problems caused by practitioners I will include these.
LATEST NEWS
3rd April 2018
“Oh, that warm and fuzzy feeling when you drive to Burnley for your trial to find that it was vacated last week. Curious, given that the Court staff confirmed to my clerks on Thursday that it was effective…”
29th March 2018″
Trial scheduled to start on Tuesday, time estimate 4 weeks, listed last June, removed from the list today. Relisted beginning of May at the demand of the Judge. Because, of course, when a case is listed for 4 weeks, nobody has anything to do in the following 4 weeks, right ?
Hours of prep. Multiple conferences with distances travelled. All seemingly for nothing in a waft of the judicial hand.
MLH
“3 handed youth all day manslaughter sentence listed 10.30 before HCJ. Can’t start as custody officers worked long hours yesterday, thus Def can’t be collected til 12pm, for 2pm start.”
27th March 2018
“Lay justices agreed case needed transferring to a District Judge and needed one hour urgent hearing. Next hearing? Seven weeks’ time (originally offered August). This is family justice in 2018. “
“Walsall Cty Ct today. One DJ sitting (usually 3), doing 2 lists, 10 hrs of hearings. J and staff did utmost and got through a lot, but clearly under unnecessary pressure.”
Sonia Nolten
“Turned up for 3 day trial against LIP and was told that it had to be adjourned because the Judge was on holiday. Listing only realised this when, on the morning of the trial, they belatedly emailed my skeleton to her and got her out of office.
And by the way the order was costs in the case because the presiding judge refused to contemplate an order against MOJ. LIP then lost when case was listed and paid two sets of costs. Utterly shameful.
It is still an unhappy memory. The poor man had prepped so hard and he was psyched up to present his case. To then be told he had to go through it all again in 4 months’ time.”
Yesterday in Gloucester CC 45 min application listed at 12. We got on at 2.30, but only because the afternoon case was adjourned and sent home. DDJ said she had spent the day apologising.
MONITORING TO DATE
Some monitoring has already taken place
Patrick Limb QC of Ropewalk Chambers,
“… across Chambers here, 18 cases late-vacated between 6th February and 2nd March ie. in working day terms, one a day. Others transferred etc. As I understand it, none of them weather-related”
CIVIL LISTING
From StirredNtShaken (21/03/18).
“Tomorrow. Fast track trial Kingston upon Thames. Listed 4 months ago pulled from list at 1530 today. Double listed.”
Hamish MacBean
“2 day contract trial listed in Swansea last Thursday/Friday. Pulled on the Wednesday due to lack of Judges.”
From Anton Smith.(20/03/18)
“Dates to avoid in 3-month window submitted to District Registry as directed. ELH agreed and already fixed by court. 5 weeks for listing date to come from DR. In the meantime retained counsel had the County Court list a hearing on a long-running matter with no regard for his availability which now clashes. Still being resolved, incurring considerable cost for client.”
Tim Willits
“Manchester CJC fast track trials commonly listed as floaters in the last few months
FAMILY
Marissa Allman
“I was due to start a 3 day retrial before a High Court Judge on Monday. This is a decision about relocation for a child in proceedings which have now been ongoing for 18 months. It didn’t go ahead because the DFJ had erroneously informed said HCJ that the trial was to start on Tuesday, and on the back of that persuaded the HCj to take another case on the Monday. Despite the DFJ having made the order for our case to start on the Monday. HCJ was shocked to find us all gathered at court on Monday ready to start. Also couldn’t proceed because transcripts of evidence had not appeared inspite of expediting orders. Evidence was given in June 2017. We had previously been told the audio files were corrupted and therefore couldn’t be transcribed. This turned out not to be true but orders for transcription so far not complied with by HMCTS. Court also failed to provide interpreters as ordered. Retrial now listed for June on dates which clash with both counsel’s pre-existing commitments. Costs of Monday’s hearing utterly wasted. Client’s and child have another 3 months in limbo.”
TRIBUNALS
Paul Gardener.
Dates to avoid in 3-month window submitted to District Registry as directed. ELH agreed and already fixed by court. 5 weeks for listing date to come from DR. In the meantime retained counsel had the County Court list a hearing on a long-running matter with no regard for his availability which now clashes. Still being resolved, incurring considerable cost for client.
Trial listed before a Recorder at a County Court in Devon, £300k contract/equitable interest claim. The Recorder, whose identity was made known the week before trial was the senior partner of the solicitors for the Defendant. Trial adjourned 4 months. Second listing was lost because the judge was commandeered to the CofA. Further 3 months lost, then finally tried at the third attempt.
reply to Anton Smith – the convenience of counsel has nothing to do with listing
Stockport County Court is a serial offender; consistently overlisted. I am there regularly and always have to wait for hours (counting myself lucky to get on at all).
My client last week was very anxious about her (fast track) trial. She was there when the building opened at 9am. The case was adjourned at half 11, with a return date of 31 August. So that’s almost another six months of worry for her.
I should say that the staff there work hard and are very kind. They have a stressful time because of what they are up against each day.
Employment Tribunal in Cambridge last March. 4 day hearing with numerous witnesses and a nervous client cancelled the day before because “no available judge”. It took 6 months to reconvene. It was due to start on a Monday but on the Friday we were again adjourned. We finally got on recently in another court. 12 Months after the trial was supposed to commence and a very world weary client. Neither counsel or I felt able to charge for the first abortive hearing but neither of us filled the time that was lost with much chargeable time.
County Court hearing listed in March. Defendant unable to attend as abroad until after 3rd of April. Both parties agreed to an adjournment to 1st open date after 3rd April, contacted Court accordingly. Adjourned hearing date came through to 29th March!
Are you only interested in listing issues with civil cases, or criminal or family also?
2 day contract trial listed in Swansea last Thursday/Friday. Pulled on the Wednesday due to lack of Judges.
Spouse is complainant in Crown Court case of historical rape and sexual abuse, defendant on remand for 5.5 months waiting trial at Leicester Crown Court, date been in the diary for months. Friday before case due to start on the Monday, case is dropped from list at Leicester CC for reasons unknown and then because of time defendant has already spent on remand, case has to be heard before the end of the month, so moved proceedings to Stoke Crown Court! We are both vulnerable adults with mental and physical health disabilities and the move to Stoke CC was a huge shock, especially as we’d undergone special measures procedures at Leicester, which were useless as we weren’t allowed to replicate them before trial at Stoke.
Back to back at Uxbridge County Court. Waited 2 hours to get on. Judge under time pressure so a 1.5 hour trial was compressed into 1 hour. Definitely a less than ideal situation for everyone involved on both sides of the bench.
I’m surprised at the small number of comments that have been posted
Two cases come to mind.
I had a PI case involving a young woman who lacked capacity, suffered severe disability & was cared for by her parents (who were being called as witnesses). Yeovil County Court listed it for 1 day FT trial and the day before I got a call warning me it could be stood out. Given her particular disability, it wasn’t appropriate for her to be present at trial. I think I recall 3-4 cases being listed and I explained to the listings officer that the Claimant’s parents had to pay for care of the Claimant given her special needs. Matter was stood out at 3.30pm. So not only did we not recover wasted Counsel’s fee from the Defendants when we were successful, the parents also lost out on the costs of looking after the Claimant.
Another PI case was transferred from Truro County Court to Torquay & Newton Abbot County Court the day before trial. Client was unemployed and didn’t drive.
I have increasing numbers of trials which are bumped.
Actually, I can understand why the Court Service does double list, given that a significant proportion of cases will settle at the last minute. It must be frustrating to judges and listing officers alike.
However, if I were running the Court Service, I would do two things: (1) reduce issue fees, but increase hearing fees, so that there is a greater incentive to try to settle before the hearing fee becomes payable rather than on the doors of the court and (2) invest some of those fees in a modern IT system which obtains availability dates from the parties, the court and legal advisors, promptly lists the matter and then keeps everyone informed about how likely the hearing is to go ahead.
While it is understandable that hearings can be ineffective due to allocation of scarce court resources, there is a huge difference between being told of cancellation the day beforehand, and only finding out on the day of the listing after having waited around in court all day.
Edmonton County Court fast-track trial listed for Tuesday 27th, received a call today (26th) informing that the matter is being stood down, no real explanation why.
FT trial at Wakefield County Court. Was vacated and relisted for 2 weeks’ time. Upon calling to check that they had retained the Bundles, discovered they had not. A fresh set had to be put together and sent over. Each Bundle was over 1000 pages. Additional cost of man hours, stationery and courier fees not recoverable.
On the plus side, Wakefield are much easier to get hold of on the phone than many other Courts.
Clerkenwell County Court. Civil case listed for hearing last July. Defs made application for relief. Court listed the application for hearing after the trial date (ie August). Court vacated the hearing on morning (all parties in attendance), due to over listing. Court then heard the Defendant’s application in August. Chased constantly for new hearing date to be advised that the case was closed on court file and concluded at the hearing in August. Repeated calls/e mails and letter to the Senior Clerk. Phoned the court to check if the DJ had read the letter, only to be informed that the case was listed for trial in 1 week time. As at 3 days prior to trial, no order has been received to confirm the date.
Just been notified (at 2.50pm) that a hearing listed tomorrow (11 April 2018) in the County Court at Stafford has been vacated due to unavailability of Judges. Both parties have incurred Counsel’s brief fee.
Further to the complaint about ‘4 months to get a response from court’. we (as respondents) have now been waiting for more than 2 years for Bristol District Registry to make a decision regarding permission to appeal – We feel bound not to enforce the judgment debt in the meantime and each letter or phone call chasing this a further waste of resources.
Wasn’t there an article in the Law Society’s Gazette some years ago about a solicitor who issued in the High Court seeking an order requiring the county court to actually deal with his client’s case? Not sure what the cause of action was but I think it had the desired effect; whether it would now I am not so sure. Also, I think there is (or was) a limited line of authority on when a judge can order HMCTS to pay wasted costs where the court has been at fault rather than either party.