Changes to Civil Procedure and the County Court system

May 22, 2014

A number of significant changes to civil procedure and the County Court system came into force on 22 April. Naomi Chesterman highlights the key changes.

It is important that all litigators, regardless of specialism, are aware of the likely impact of the changes to civil procedure and the County Court system that came into force on 22 April. The main changes, which may lead to a greater pressure on the already busy County Court system, are summarised below:

A single County Court

Change: From April the 173 County Courts have been replaced by one County Court for both England and Wales.

Comment: Although this change sounds dramatic, with the current County Court buildings remaining as they are, subject to being rebranded as 'County Court hearing centres', the process of commencing proceedings at your local centre looks to remain the same.

Civil jurisdiction

Change: While possession claims may be issued in any court, some proceedings will have to be commenced in certain centres. These are:

money claims - Salford Centre;
business claims - Northampton Centre;
family claims - the new Family Court.

In addition, the High Court now has exclusive jurisdiction for certain specialist proceedings, the details of which are available at the link at the bottom of this article.

Comment: This change is likely to have little impact as it is not far from the previous system for issuing claims.

Equity jurisdiction to increase

Change: Under section 23 County Courts Act 1984, the equity jurisdiction of the County Court has been increased for the first time in 33 years from £30,000 to £350,000.

Comment: This increase is likely to give rise to a significant increase in the number of equitable claims being heard in the County Court. In conjunction with the recent Jackson reforms, this could add to the pressure on the County Court with its already substantial workload.

Freezing orders

Change: Nominated Circuit Judges will now be able to make freezing orders in all cases. However, Judges will still not be able to grant search orders.

Comment: This change will hopefully allow for a more streamlined process when trying to obtain freezing orders.

Financial limit to increase

Change: Previously, claims could not be commenced in the High Court where they were for a value below £25,000. This limit has been increased to £100,000 for all claims except personal injury claims for which the limit will stay at £50,000.

Comment: Combined with the changes above, this increase in the financial limit can seemingly only serve to compound the pressure already on the County Court.

Costs management orders

Change: Clarification has been provided on where and how CPR Part 3 Section II (costs management) applies.

Comment: The CPR has been amended (rules 3.12 and 3.15) to clarify the situations in which the court will make a costs management order.

Section II will apply to all Part 7 multi-track cases (subject to some exceptions) but not to Part 8 cases. Hopefully this clarification will help parties assess their prospects of obtaining a costs management order and inform the advice of practitioners when discussing options with their clients.

Enforcement by seizure

Change: Simplification of the seizure and sale of goods as a form of enforcement.

Comment: The law relating to enforcement agents has been simplified but it is not yet clear what the effect of this change will be. The new Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery procedure (CRAR) has also replaced the old law on distress, creating a very different landscape for landlords wishing to seize goods. Landlords would be wise to think very carefully before going down that route.

As well as the major changes to this area of law, the terminology used has also been changed. An example of this is the change of 'writ of fieri facias' to 'writ of control'.

Court fees

Change: Many court fees for civil proceedings have been significantly increased.

Comment: This change, although not welcomed by many, is most likely a response to the increasing strain felt by the Civil Court system. It will no doubt have an impact on those deciding whether it is appropriate or worthwhile to commence proceedings and encourage people to resolve their affairs in alternative ways.

Conclusion

It is clear from the changes put in place that the emphasis has been on unifying and streamlining the court process in the UK. In particular, the increase to the equity jurisdiction and the financial limit for commencing claims in the High Court. It remains to be seen whether this streamlining will have the desired effect of creating a more effective, smoother running system or whether instead it will create a bottleneck where claims go in and get stuck in the court system for vast periods of time.

Naomi Chesterman is a senior associate at Veale Wasbrough Vizards. She can be contacted on 0117 314 5481 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

For more information on this matter, go to www.legislation.gov.uk.