Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) We have now had ten years of the Essay

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) We have now had ten years of the Woolf reforms and experience proves that - Essay Example The exchange of documents must take place beforehand and no evidence can be allowed to be produced at the end of the trial to cause embarrassment to the opponent and leave him bewildered with no instant answer. Apart from this, the new requirement literally results in the trial being conducted twice. Any deficiencies on the part of the disputing parties are liable to be penalized by extra cost for having wasted court’s time and the other party’s time. This development has driven the litigants to seek redress out of court or suffer without their dispute being resolved. For example, as against 350,000 new cases filed in 1990 and 1991 before the Queen’s bench, cases filed after the reforms were 150,000 each year especially after the expansion of jurisdiction for country courts. And now since the year 2002, new claims have dropped to less than 20,000 per year. He says that this is a reflection of litigation being settled by other than legal means. The new CPR has led to judges’ over-involvement in the case management which increases only the litigation cost with ninety percent unsure whether a case would be tried at all.1 Immediate reaction from Judge Charles Harris QC on April 16, 2009 notes that Lawrence’s comments are exaggerated. He points out that the interim report of June 1995 on Access to Justice was concerned with three evils obstructing the way to justice. They were â€Å"delay, complexity and cost†. According to him Woolf reforms have reduced delays by virtue of case management by the judiciary which prevents litigators from prolonging their cases. As for complexity, unlike old Sale of Act 1979, modern day legislations like Consumer Credit Act 2006 are not fully comprehensible to both the lawyers as well the litigants. This complexity had crept in into criminal law and civil procedure as well. Hence, Lord Woolf aimed at simplicity for the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) so that they are easily comprehended by both th e lawyers and litigants. He therefore introduced shorter expressions like â€Å"claimant† â€Å"statement of the case† and â€Å"part 20 defendant†. The rules empower a judge to do what is fair and appropriate. As for its complexity, it has become more complex going by the fact that the CPR prior to 1997 which ran into 3,933 pages is now 5,827 pages which included a supplement and further 287 pages of guidance. As against Lord Woolf’s objective of reducing the multiplicity of practice directions, the opposite has happened. While the fast track rules for straight forward cases run into seven pages, practice directions consist of nine pages. He says that well drafted rules do not require practice directions and they do not make sense to the litigants either. As for access to justice, Judge Charles Harris says that it depends on how quickly and easily proceedings could be commenced. Prior to CPR, it was very simple with a mere letter to the opponent for whic h if there was no reply, straight away case could be filed with a