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

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) We befool now had cristal years of the Woolf reforms and experience proves that - Essay ExampleThe exchange of documents must take place beforehand and no evidence can be allowed to be produced at the end of the trial run 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 courts time and the other partys 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 oddballs filed in 1990 and 1991 before the Queens 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 20,00 0 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 cabaretty percent unsure whether a case would be tried at all.1 Immediate reply from Judge Charles Harris QC on April 16, 2009 notes that Lawrences 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 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 execution 1979, modern day legislations like Consumer Credit Act 2006 are not fully comprehensible to twain the lawyers as well the litigants. This complexity had crept in into sorry law and civil procedure as well. Hence, Lord Woolf aim ed at simplicity for the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) so that they are easily comprehended by both the lawyers and litigants. He therefore introduced shorter expressions like claimant statement of the case and part 20 defendant. The rules empower a judge to do what is fair and appropriate. As for its complexity, it has aim 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 Woolfs 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 promptly and easily proceedings could be commenced. Prior to CPR, it was very simple with a mere letter to the opponent for which if there was no reply, straight away case could be filed with a