Home > Publications > Reports & Reviews > Access to Justice

Access to Justice

Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales

Summary

What a civil justice system should do A civil justice system should:

be just in the results it delivers;
be fair in the way it treats litigants;
offer appropriate procedures at a reasonable cost;
deal with cases with reasonable speed;
be understandable to those who use it;
be responsive to the needs of those who use it;
provide as much certainty as the nature of particular cases allows;
be effective: adequately resourced and organised.

What is wrong with the system Our present system is:

too unequal: there is a lack of equality between the powerful, wealthy litigant and the under-resourced litigant.
too expensive: the costs often exceed the value of the claim;
too uncertain: the difficulty of forecasting what litigation will cost and how long it will last induces fear of the unknown;
slow in bringing cases to a conclusion;
too complicated: both the law and procedure can be incomprehensible to many litigants;
too fragmented in the way it is organised: there is no-one with clear overall responsibility for the administration of civil justice;
too adversarial: cases are run by the parties, not by the courts. The rules of court are, all too often, ignored by the parties and not enforced by the court.

A new approach to justice What is needed is a system where the courts are responsible for the management of cases. The courts must:

decide what procedure is suitable for each case;
set realistic timetables, and
ensure that the procedures and timetables are complied with.

If "time and money are no object" was the right approach in the past, then it certainly is not today. Both lawyers and judges, in making decisions as to the conduct of litigation, must take into account, more than the do at present, questions of cost and time and the means of the parties.

Case management The current system applies the same procedures to all cases regardless of financial weight, complexity or importance. In the new system cases will be allocated to appropriate tracks for case management and trial.
The report proposes:

An expanded small claims jurisdiction extended up to £3,000.
A new fast track for straightforward cases up to £10,000, with:

strictly limited procedures,
fixed timetables (20-30 weeks to trial), and
fixed costs.

A new multi-track, for cases above £10,000, providing individual hands on management by judicial teams for the heaviest cases, and standard or tailor made directions where these are appropriate.

For heavier cases on the multi-track there will be:

a case management conference shortly after the defence is filed, and
a pre-trial review a few short weeks before the trial.

Parties will have to attend the case management conference and the pre-trial review. On each occasion they will have to give an estimate of the costs they have incurred to date, and the likely further cost if the case proceeds to trial.
A leading objective of case management is to encourage settlement of cases at the earliest appropriate stage. This will be done by:

enabling both parties to make offers to settle relating to the whole case or to individual issues;
giving the courts a wider power to decide cases or issues at an early stage without full trial;
suggesting the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) where there is likely to be beneficial;
requiring a more co-operative approach between the parties and avoiding unnecessary combativeness; and
identifying and reducing issues as a basis for appropriate case preparation.
When settlement cannot be achieved, case management will ensure that cases progress quickly and economically as is appropriate.
Litigants who behave unreasonably will be penalised by orders for costs which will be payable immediately on an indemnity basis, and enhanced rates of interest.

Judicial and administrative responsibility The system will be headed by a senior judge with overall responsibility for civil justice to be known as the Head of Civil justice. His appointment will raise the status of civil justice, enable it to be run as a single system, and ensure effective use of resources within the entire administration of civil justice. Judges at each level of the system will have clearer responsibility for civil cases, and there will be equivalent roles for administrators in the Court Service.

Rules of Court There will be a simplified and combined set of rules instead of two separate sets of rules for the High Court and the county courts. There will be a single method of starting all claims.
The general objective of the rules will be to enable the court to deal with cases justly. The rules will make it clear that "dealing with a case justly" includes considerations of expense and delay and requires the court to take the parties' financial position into account.

Information Technology Information technology (computers and telecommunications) will assist case management, the administration of the courts and the conduct of litigation. Parties will not need to attend court for procedural hearings if these can be conducted by telephone.

Maintaining the pace of change To keep up the momentum of change in the longer term there is a need for a Civil Justice Council supported by at local level by effective court users' committees.

Court procedures Detailed changes in procedure will also help to make litigation quicker, cheaper and less complicated.

Statements of case will have to spell out the facts relied on so that the courts and parties can identify and define the issues in dispute. Parties will have to verify the contents. They will no longer be able to use pleadings to conceal the lack of merit in a claim or defence.
There will be a new approach to disclosure of documents. It will be controlled by the courts, restricted and tailored to the nature and size of the case.
Parties will continue to exchange witness statements, but will have more freedom to supplement them at trial.
The attendance of experts at court will be dispensed with whenever possible. The court will control when and by whom experts can be called.
The court will appoint a single, neutral expert where appropriate. When experts are instructed by the parties, it will be made clear that, in giving evidence to a court, they owe their primary duty to the court and not the parties. More use will be made of experts as assessors and arbitrators.
Solicitors will have to tell parties their method of charging at the start of the case and to inform them and the court of the level of costs reached at the key stages.

How the system will help ordinary people The new system will make it easier for ordinary people to take cases to court in a number of ways.

Extending small claims will provide a simple procedure for cases up to £3,000 (except personal injury cases), with no legal costs.

The new fast track will provide simplified procedure, fixed timetable and fixed costs for cases up to £10,000.

Small personal injury cases will be dealt with on the fast track so that claimants can have the benefit of legal assistance.

The new rules and simplified procedures will be easier to follow, and there will be only one way of starting a case.

Litigants will be able to start a case an any court, and the court will take responsibility for allocating it to the appropriate part of the system.

Judges will be encouraged to help unrepresented litigants to present their cases in court.

More advice and information will be provided by the Court Service and there will be more advice agencies situated in Courts. Court staff will be responsible for ensuring that litigants know where to go for advice.

Recommendations: 124 detailed recommendations were made by Lord Woolf. These are listed below:

1	There should be a fundamental transfer in the responsibility for the management of civil litigation from litigants and their legal advisers to the courts.
2	The management should be provided by a three tier system : an increased small claims jurisdiction, a new fast track for cases in the lower end of the scale and a new multi track for the remaining cases.
3	The court should have an enlarged jurisdiction to give summary judgement on the application of either a claimant or defendant or on the court's own initiative, on the grounds that a case has or part of a case has no realistic prospect of success.
4	All cases where a defence is received will be examined by a procedural judge who will allocate the case to the appropriate track.
5	In the larger court centres, judges engaged on the management and trial of civil proceedings should work in teams and normally a case should be handled only by members of the same team.
6	The fast track, which is primarily for cases where the value does not exceed £10,000, will have a set timetable of 20-30 weeks, limited discovery, a trial confined to not more than three hours and no oral evidence from experts, it would also have fixed costs.
7	On the multi track, case management will usually be provided through at least two interlocutory management hearings: the first will be a case management conference shortly after the defence is received (usually conducted by the procedural judge) and the second will be a pre-trial review (normally conducted by the trial judge ).
8	Among the information to be made available at the case management conference and the pre-trial review, will be estimates of the amount of costs already incurred by each party and the costs which will be incurred if the case proceeds to trial.
9	The case management conference should be attended by a counsel or solicitor with responsibility for the conduct of a case and at pre-trail review the counsel or solicitor instructed to attend the trial must appear; the lay client, or someone fully authorised to act on his behalf, will be required to attend both hearings.
10	On the multi track, cases will always be proceeding to a fixed timetable and initially to an approximate and subsequently to a fixed date of trial.
11	To provide time for case management, civil trials on the multi-track would not normally be heard on Fridays.
12	There should be a Head of Civil Justice who will have overall responsibility for the civil justice system in England and Wales.
13	A Presiding Judge on each Circuit should be nominated as having primary responsibility for civil work.
14	The two Chancery Judges responsible for overseeing Chancery work on circuit should also oversee the business and mercantile lists.
15	There should be a Senior Civil Judge appointed for each civil trial centre and its satellite courts.
16	The Court Service should appoint officials who correspond to the judges responsible for judicial administration to act in partnership.
17	Cases on the multi-track should be managed by teams of judges.
18	Each team should have a Master or District Judge as the manager of the team and, except in unusually complex cases, as the procedural judge.
19	High Court and Circuit Judges should concentrate on fewer areas of work without becoming single subject specialists.
20	An appropriate share of Judicial resources should be allocated to civil business. The trial judges for heavier civil cases should be identified earlier than at present to enable them to conduct the pre-trial reviews in those cases.
21	Masters and District judges should be eligible for appointmevalign="top" nt as Circuit Judges, without having to sit as recorders in Crime.
22	High Court judges should continue to visit Circuits and not be resident on Circuit.
23	There should be training and monitoring of judges in relation to case management. This should be under judicial supervision.
24	The High Court and the County Court should be retained as separate courts and the separate status of the High Court judge should not be undermined.
25	High Court and the County Court should generally have the same jurisdiction and outside London, should be administered together. Cases should be remitted to the lowest appropriate level for trial.
26	The specialist judges on Circuit should provide support to each others lists.
27	The Chancery and the Queen's Bench Division should retain their separate identities.
28	Outside London there should be three or four designated civil trial centres on each circuit.
29	Small claims and fast track cases should be dealt with at local county courts
30	Consideration should be given to the extent to which the IT requirements of case management, as proposed in this report, can be integrated into the LOCCS framework.
31	Judges should be equipped with personal computers powerful enough to support all the proposals in this report. There should be consultation with a wider range of judges to establish a full range of applications. The specifications of minimum requirements for judicial systems should be recognised in this light. There should be enhanced training and technical support to encourage a wider range of judicial users.
32	Litigation support systems should be used more widely by the professions. The portion of recoverability under legal aid and taxation should be clarified.
33	Video and telephone conferencing facilities should be piloted and introduced as a priority to assist judges, particularly procedural judges , in case management and the legal aspects of the use of new technology should be considered.
34	Video recording and viewing facilities should be introduced in the appropriate centres.
35	There should be exploration of the provision of IT to inform and assist the public and the scope for its provision in public places and advice centres.
36	The policy in relation to providing primary source materials, especially statutory materials, in electronic form should be clarified.
37	There should be an evaluation of the implications of the proposed PFI procurement scheme for the civil courts, including the necessary safeguards and the infrastructures
38	There should be co-ordination of the provision of IT in the civil justice system, involving all the key bodies. The proposed Civil Justice Council and ITAC should consider how best to advise on and assist in this.
39	Except for personal injury cases, the financial limit for the small claims jurisdiction should be increased to £3,000. The effect of the increase and the measures recommended below, should be monitored with a view to a possible further increase to £5,000.
40	All personal injury cases up to £10,000 should be dealt with in the fast track. If the small claims limit is increased before the introduction of the fast track, the increase should not apply to the personal injury cases.
41	The District Judges discretion to transfer complex cases out of the small claims jurisdiction should be widened by removing the requirement that complexity must be "exceptional".
42	Unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances, small claims should be disposed of in a single hearing. If clarification is required from the parties this should wherever possible, be done by correspondence or telephone.
43	Businesses should be allowed to continue to use the scheme.
44	All District Judges and Deputy District Judges should be trained in handling small claims, to ensure a more consistent approach.
45	The option of paper adjudication in small claims should be more effectively publicised.
46	The court should have power to appoint an expert assessor from a list provided by the appropriate professional body. Subject to the judge's discretion, the cost of the assessor should be recoverable from the unsuccessful party or shared between the parties.
47	The provision of assistance to litigants should be an invariable obligation of the courts.
48	In the context of the consultation paper on legal aid and the aims of the Court Service, the Lord Chancellor should determine and implement the best way of providing advice through court based or duty advice and assistance schemes funded by the Legal Aid Board.
49	IT kiosks should be introduced on a trial basis at selected courts.
50	Research should be conducted into litigants information needs and the most helpful way of presenting information. The feasibility of providing an explanatory video on the court process should be investigated.
51	The courts should provide reasonable facilities, preferably in private, for filling in forms.
52	Both professional litigants and unrepresented litigants should have access to court libraries.
53	All the Civil Justice Review's recommendations on the provision of information and advice to litigants should be fully implemented.
54	There should be a permanent advice centre in larger courts. In courts with smaller workloads, there should be an investigation as to whether court-based advice agencies are more effective than those located elsewhere.
55	Permanent facilities should be provided for all court based advice schemes, where possible.
56	There should be a duty advice scheme funded by Legal Aid at each of the courts identified as handling substantial levels of debt and housing work. Ways of providing more general assistance, by the provision of a Citizens Advice Bureau or similar facility at court centres where the workload would justify it, should be explored and the possibility of Legal Aid funding for such a service should be considered.
57	Judges should be prepared to adopt an interventionist approach in all cases involving an unrepresented party and the handling of such cases should be fully covered in judicial training.
58	The law in relation to housing should be simplified.
59	Alternative ways of providing court services in rural areas should be explored, including mobile courts providing small claims hearings, as well as advice and information.
60	The possibility of holding evening or weekend courts should be re-examined.
61	Court buildings should be clearly sign-posted, in appropriate minority languages as well as English.
62	Developments abroad particularly those in the USA, Australia and Canada, in relation to ADR should be monitored, the Judicial Studies Board giving as much assistance as is practicable.
63	The retail sector should be encouraged to develop private ombudsmen schemes to cover consumer complaints similar to those that that now exist in relation to service industries; the government should facilitate this.
64	The relationship between ombudsmen and the courts should be broadened, enabling issues to be referred by the ombudsmen to the courts and the courts to the ombudsmen with the consent of those involved.
65	The discretion of the public ombudsmen to investigate issues involving maladministration which could be raised before the courts should be extended.
66	In the review of legal aid, the funding of voluntary organisations providing mediation services should be considered.
67	The courts should encourage and facilitate mini-trials in appropriate cases and use of mini-trials should be tested on an experimental basis in a selected number of courts.
68	The courts should, where appropriate, consider taking advantage of bodies such as the City Disputes Panel, to give authoritative guidance on particular practices from those who have experience at the higher level.
69	Where there is a satisfactory alternatives to the resolution of disputes in court, use of which would be an advantage of the litigants, then the courts should encourage the use of this alternative : for this purpose the staff and the judiciary must be aware of the forms of ADR that exist and what can be achieved.
70	At the case management conference and the pre-trial review, the parties should be required to state whether the question of ADR has been discussed and if not, why not.
71	In deciding on the future conduct of a case, the judge should be able to take into account the litigants unreasonable refusal to attempt ADR.
72	The Lord Chancellor and the Court Service should treat it as one of their responsibilities to make the public aware of the possibilities which ADR offers.
73	Consideration should be given to the way in which members of the professions who are experienced in litigation and who retire at an early age can be involved as "civil magistrates" or otherwise , in support of the civil justice system.
74	There should be a new ethos of co-operation on the part of the litigants and their representatives before proceedings are begun.
75	The appropriate professional bodies should draw up guidelines for the pre-proceedings conduct of legal representatives.
76	As part of its responsibility for managing cases, the court will ensure that the parties plainly state the factual ingredients of their case so that the true nature and scope of the dispute can be identified.
77	The basic function of pleadings is to state the facts relied upon.
78	The claim and defence will be considered by the procedural judge after the defence is filed and, if the issues cannot be readily identified from the pleadings, directions will be given with a view to rectifying this.
79	Where there has been a case management conference, a major aim will be to produce a statement of the issues in dispute, which will effectively take over from the pleadings.
80	If unavoidably new facts and issues emerge during the proceedings, the statement of issues can be altered to reflect this.
81	A claim should contain the following : (a) a succinct statement of the facts entitling the claimant to a remedy. (b) the remedy or remedies claimed (c) any matters of law arising out of the stated facts which entitle the plaintiff to a remedy, and (d) the legal nature of the claim where it would otherwise not be clear.
82	A defence should contain : (a) the parts of a claim admitted and not admitted (b) the defendants version of the facts so far as different from those stated in the claim (c) specific defences ( voluntary assumption of risk, failure to mitigate loss etc.) and any grounds for denying the facts stated by the defendant, or for disputing its value or denying entitlement to a particular remedy (d) Where no specific facts or legal grounds are relied upon, that the defendant does not know that the facts stated in the claim are true and requires the plaintiff to prove them and if appropriate, why this is required.
83	Leave to serve a reply will be required and no further pleadings should be served.
84	Statements of case will refer to the principal document relied upon. A party would be permitted, but not obliged, to attach to his statement of case the principal documents to which he refers and the names of his anticipated witnesses or summaries of their evidence.
85	Statements of case will contain a declaration on behalf of the party of belief of the accuracy and truth of the matters put forward.
86	The term "pleading" should be replaced by "statement of case".
87	A requirement to disclose documents should be retained, but subject to controls.
88	In fast track cases, discovery should normally be confined to documents on which a party relies or which to a material extent undermines his case or supports another party's case ("standard discovery")
89	In the multi track, standard discovery should be the first stage, the extent and timing of "extra discovery" being determined by the procedural judge.
90	Standard discovery should be limited to documents whose existence a party is aware of at the time when the obligation to disclosure arises. If the documents involved are likely to be voluminous, a party can state that he was limiting disclosure to those which were capable of being located without undue difficulty or expense.
91	It will be normally only be necessary to disclose one version of a document
92	In determining whether to order extra discovery, the procedural judge should have regard to the issues in the case and the order in which they are likely to be resolved, the resources and the circumstances of the parties, the likely cost of extra discovery and the likely benefit.
93	The restriction of the court's powers in respect of pre-action discovery to personal injury cases should be removed.
94	The use of interrogatories should not be permitted on the fast track and, in multi track cases, should require the leave of the procedural judge in the absence of agreement.
95	On the fast track, witness summaries should be exchanged instead of full statements.
96	On the multi track, before the case management conference, only the identity of witnesses and the issues with which they deal with need be disclosed. After the case management conference, when the issues have been identified witness statements should be exchanged.
97	A party should be entitled to require his witness to amplify their summaries or statements but not to raise new matters except with the leave of the party.
98	Cross-examination on the contents of witness summaries and statements should only be allowed with the leave of the judge.
99	A practice guide dealing with the preparation and use of witness summaries and statements should be issued.
100	The costs allowed for witness statements and summaries should reflect the fact that they are not intended to be elaborate documents.
101	The calling of expert evidence should be subject to the complete control of the court.
102	The court should have discretion, with or without the agreement of the parties, to appoint an expert to report or give evidence to the court.
103	The court should have wide power to appoint assessors.
104	Experts should be given clear guidance that, when preparing their evidence or actually giving evidence to a court, their first responsibility is to the court and not their client.
105	Any report prepared for the purpose of giving evidence to a court should be addressed to the court.
106	Such a report should end with a declaration that it includes everything which the expert regards as being relevant to the opinion which he has expressed in his report and that he has drawn to the attention of the court any matter which would affect the validity of that opinion.
107	If experts instructed by the parties meet at the discretion of the court, it should be unprofessional conduct for the expert to be given or to accept instructions not to reach agreement. If the experts cannot meet an agreement on an issue, they should specify their reasons for not being able to do so.
108	Once an expert has been instructed to prepare a report for the use of a court, any communication between the expert and the client or his advisers should no longer be the subject of legal privilege.
109	Codes of practice providing guidance as to the practice in relation to experts should be drawn up jointly by the appropriate professional bodies representing the experts and the legal profession.
110	Unless the plaintiff is relying on the Doctor by whom he is being treated, the defendant should be told whom the plaintiff aims to instruct and invited to make any comments as to the proposed instructions.
111	Before a Doctor reports on behalf of a plaintiff or defendant, the opposing party should have the opportunity to give instructions to that Doctor.
112	If more than one Doctor is to be instructed in a case in the fast-track, the doctors should be instructed at the same time with a view to producing a joint report.
113	Every effort should be made by the court to avoid doctors having to attend court, or, if they have to attend court, to reduce the inconvenience this involves. Video technology should be used.
114	The present method of making payments into court should be replaced by a system which permits the parties to make an offer of settlement.
115	Offers to settle can be made by a plaintiff as well as a defendant.
116	Offers to settle can relate to individual issues.
117	Offers to settle can be made before the commencement of proceedings
118	Offers to settle can result in substantially enhanced costs and interest being payable.
119	The extent to entitlement to costs and interest in respect to an offer should be in the courts discretion and should depend on the extent of disclosure by the parties.
120	It should be a professional obligation for lawyers, before they are retained in connection with litigation, to explain to the prospective client, how their charges for litigation are to be calculated and what the overall cost will be; and for the solicitor to give reasonable notice where that estimate is likely to be exceeded and the reason for this.
121	Legal professional bodies should encourage their members, where this is practical, to undertake litigation on fixed fees, either for stages of the proceedings or the proceedings as a whole.
122	Courts, in making orders for costs, should pay greater regard than they do at present to the manner in which the successful party has conducted the proceedings and the outcomes of individual issues.
123	As part of the wider discussion of legal aid, consideration should be given to the position of the unassisted litigant who succeeds against a legally aided opponent.
124	As part of the review of court fees, the position of a litigant of modest means should be protected from the undue impact of increased court fees.

Return to the Civil Justice Page

What a civil justice system should do	A civil justice system should: be just in the results it delivers; be fair in the way it treats litigants; offer appropriate procedures at a reasonable cost; deal with cases with reasonable speed; be understandable to those who use it; be responsive to the needs of those who use it; provide as much certainty as the nature of particular cases allows; be effective: adequately resourced and organised.
What is wrong with the system	Our present system is: too unequal: there is a lack of equality between the powerful, wealthy litigant and the under-resourced litigant. too expensive: the costs often exceed the value of the claim; too uncertain: the difficulty of forecasting what litigation will cost and how long it will last induces fear of the unknown; slow in bringing cases to a conclusion; too complicated: both the law and procedure can be incomprehensible to many litigants; too fragmented in the way it is organised: there is no-one with clear overall responsibility for the administration of civil justice; too adversarial: cases are run by the parties, not by the courts. The rules of court are, all too often, ignored by the parties and not enforced by the court.
A new approach to justice	What is needed is a system where the courts are responsible for the management of cases. The courts must: decide what procedure is suitable for each case; set realistic timetables, and ensure that the procedures and timetables are complied with. If "time and money are no object" was the right approach in the past, then it certainly is not today. Both lawyers and judges, in making decisions as to the conduct of litigation, must take into account, more than the do at present, questions of cost and time and the means of the parties.
Case management	The current system applies the same procedures to all cases regardless of financial weight, complexity or importance. In the new system cases will be allocated to appropriate tracks for case management and trial. The report proposes: An expanded small claims jurisdiction extended up to £3,000. A new fast track for straightforward cases up to £10,000, with: strictly limited procedures, fixed timetables (20-30 weeks to trial), and fixed costs. A new multi-track, for cases above £10,000, providing individual hands on management by judicial teams for the heaviest cases, and standard or tailor made directions where these are appropriate. For heavier cases on the multi-track there will be: a case management conference shortly after the defence is filed, and a pre-trial review a few short weeks before the trial. Parties will have to attend the case management conference and the pre-trial review. On each occasion they will have to give an estimate of the costs they have incurred to date, and the likely further cost if the case proceeds to trial. A leading objective of case management is to encourage settlement of cases at the earliest appropriate stage. This will be done by: enabling both parties to make offers to settle relating to the whole case or to individual issues; giving the courts a wider power to decide cases or issues at an early stage without full trial; suggesting the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) where there is likely to be beneficial; requiring a more co-operative approach between the parties and avoiding unnecessary combativeness; and identifying and reducing issues as a basis for appropriate case preparation. When settlement cannot be achieved, case management will ensure that cases progress quickly and economically as is appropriate. Litigants who behave unreasonably will be penalised by orders for costs which will be payable immediately on an indemnity basis, and enhanced rates of interest.
Judicial and administrative responsibility	The system will be headed by a senior judge with overall responsibility for civil justice to be known as the Head of Civil justice. His appointment will raise the status of civil justice, enable it to be run as a single system, and ensure effective use of resources within the entire administration of civil justice. Judges at each level of the system will have clearer responsibility for civil cases, and there will be equivalent roles for administrators in the Court Service.
Rules of Court	There will be a simplified and combined set of rules instead of two separate sets of rules for the High Court and the county courts. There will be a single method of starting all claims. The general objective of the rules will be to enable the court to deal with cases justly. The rules will make it clear that "dealing with a case justly" includes considerations of expense and delay and requires the court to take the parties' financial position into account.
Information Technology	Information technology (computers and telecommunications) will assist case management, the administration of the courts and the conduct of litigation. Parties will not need to attend court for procedural hearings if these can be conducted by telephone.
Maintaining the pace of change	To keep up the momentum of change in the longer term there is a need for a Civil Justice Council supported by at local level by effective court users' committees.
Court procedures	Detailed changes in procedure will also help to make litigation quicker, cheaper and less complicated. Statements of case will have to spell out the facts relied on so that the courts and parties can identify and define the issues in dispute. Parties will have to verify the contents. They will no longer be able to use pleadings to conceal the lack of merit in a claim or defence. There will be a new approach to disclosure of documents. It will be controlled by the courts, restricted and tailored to the nature and size of the case. Parties will continue to exchange witness statements, but will have more freedom to supplement them at trial. The attendance of experts at court will be dispensed with whenever possible. The court will control when and by whom experts can be called. The court will appoint a single, neutral expert where appropriate. When experts are instructed by the parties, it will be made clear that, in giving evidence to a court, they owe their primary duty to the court and not the parties. More use will be made of experts as assessors and arbitrators. Solicitors will have to tell parties their method of charging at the start of the case and to inform them and the court of the level of costs reached at the key stages.
How the system will help ordinary people	The new system will make it easier for ordinary people to take cases to court in a number of ways. Extending small claims will provide a simple procedure for cases up to £3,000 (except personal injury cases), with no legal costs. The new fast track will provide simplified procedure, fixed timetable and fixed costs for cases up to £10,000. Small personal injury cases will be dealt with on the fast track so that claimants can have the benefit of legal assistance. The new rules and simplified procedures will be easier to follow, and there will be only one way of starting a case. Litigants will be able to start a case an any court, and the court will take responsibility for allocating it to the appropriate part of the system. Judges will be encouraged to help unrepresented litigants to present their cases in court. More advice and information will be provided by the Court Service and there will be more advice agencies situated in Courts. Court staff will be responsible for ensuring that litigants know where to go for advice.
Recommendations:	124 detailed recommendations were made by Lord Woolf. These are listed below: