Recommendations & Conclusions
43 items
1
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Acknowledged
The criminal justice system is often the focus of mainstream attention and gets recognition for delivering justice, but with over a million claims each year, and a vast jurisdiction, the County Court is where most citizens and businesses encounter the justice system. It is imperative that the improvement of the …
Read more
The criminal justice system is often the focus of mainstream attention and gets recognition for delivering justice, but with over a million claims each year, and a vast jurisdiction, the County Court is where most citizens and businesses encounter the justice system. It is imperative that the improvement of the County Court becomes a key priority of the Ministry of Justice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 16) Delays in the County Court
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government vaguely commits to reviewing its civil justice data and considering whether improvements could be made to its publication processes, without directly addressing the recommendation to make County Court improvement a key priority.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
2
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ has never been more relevant to the work of the County Court: the current level of delays is unacceptable. Whilst we recognise the pandemic significantly contributed to the backlog in cases, the available data clearly shows it only exacerbated existing trends. The rising caseload, and …
Read more
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ has never been more relevant to the work of the County Court: the current level of delays is unacceptable. Whilst we recognise the pandemic significantly contributed to the backlog in cases, the available data clearly shows it only exacerbated existing trends. The rising caseload, and increased delays were in motion before 2020, and post-pandemic there has been little by way of improvement. (Conclusion, Paragraph 30)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges unacceptable delays for trials and commits to increasing judicial recruitment, enhancing digital working, and implementing the Civil Auto File Share (CAFS) project to streamline document management and improve case progression.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
3
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Acknowledged
The civil justice quarterly statistics do not aid transparency or allow for effective data-led scrutiny into the performances of individual courts. The County Court is known to house significant regional variation across England and Wales yet there is no evidence of pro-active measurement of these regional differences, analysis of why …
Read more
The civil justice quarterly statistics do not aid transparency or allow for effective data-led scrutiny into the performances of individual courts. The County Court is known to house significant regional variation across England and Wales yet there is no evidence of pro-active measurement of these regional differences, analysis of why such variation occurs, or sharing of good practice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 31)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees on the importance of data-informed listing practices and states that HMCTS is currently exploring the development of predictive analytical tools using machine learning to support better administration of listing.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
4
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Rejected
HMCTS must collect and publish data on individual court and tribunal performances to allow for the identification of regional disparities, and support investment planning in reducing County Court delays. The data must include the timeliness of pre-trial stages, rates of settlement and enable HMCTS’ performance to be measured against published …
Read more
HMCTS must collect and publish data on individual court and tribunal performances to allow for the identification of regional disparities, and support investment planning in reducing County Court delays. The data must include the timeliness of pre-trial stages, rates of settlement and enable HMCTS’ performance to be measured against published key performance indicators. (Recommendation, Paragraph 32)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states that listing is a judicial function requiring over-listing, and that the better strategic solution is improved, data-informed listing, without committing to collecting or publishing the specific granular court and tribunal performance data requested.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
5
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
As part of any future review, HMCTS must develop a manageable programme to reduce the delays to pre-2015 levels by the end of this Parliament. (Recommendation, Paragraph 33) 55
Government response AI summary
The government commits to developing a cross-jurisdictional Remote Participation Strategy to improve consistency, efficiency, and accessibility in using remote hearings, aiming to reduce County Court delays and ease pressure on resources.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
6
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
We recognise the role that block listing plays in providing flexibility to the schedule considering the high settlement rate in the County Court. However, we have heard concerns that it negatively impacts court users through financial implications and the increased frustrations of all parties resulting in more people settling as …
Read more
We recognise the role that block listing plays in providing flexibility to the schedule considering the high settlement rate in the County Court. However, we have heard concerns that it negatively impacts court users through financial implications and the increased frustrations of all parties resulting in more people settling as a means to end the cycle of uncertainty. This ultimately undermines trust in the system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 41)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government details an action plan to improve County Court contact services, including integrating Civil Auto File Share (CAFS), implementing a multiskilling programme for call handlers, introducing clearer contact points, and rolling out webchat and query management tools.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
7
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
HMCTS, together with the Judiciary, must work together to collect the necessary data on listing and settlement rates to allow for data-informed listing practices ensuring any over-listing is minimised. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42)
Government response AI summary
The government states a roadmap is developed to improve the Find a Court or Tribunal (FaCT) system, including auditing content, reviewing policies, engaging user groups, and delivering improvements by September 2026.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
8
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
Litigants must be able to recover the legal, travel, and subsistence costs from HMCTS wasted as a result of over-listing and/or poor court administration preventing their cases from being heard. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43)
Government response AI summary
The government states it commissioned the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) to review judicial salary structures, with a report due in November 2026, and will concurrently review regional District Judge recruitment exercises concluding in Spring 2026.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
9
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Acknowledged
HMCTS, and the Ministry of Justice, must facilitate the greater use of remote hearings, working alongside the Senior Judiciary to provide national guidance outlining when virtual hearings should be used. (Recommendation, Paragraph 44) Contacting the County Court
Read more
HMCTS, and the Ministry of Justice, must facilitate the greater use of remote hearings, working alongside the Senior Judiciary to provide national guidance outlining when virtual hearings should be used. (Recommendation, Paragraph 44) Contacting the County Court
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it is progressing work by planning to review and restate the County Court operating model and revisit its resource model to align with workload demand and post-Reform ways of working, but does not commit to producing specific national guidance on the use …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
10
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Acknowledged
Despite its intended aim of simplifying the operation of the County Court, the centralisation of essential court operations has had a devastating impact on the delivery of justice, entrenching the postcode lottery and results in debilitating delays for all parties. The current methods of contacting a county court do not …
Read more
Despite its intended aim of simplifying the operation of the County Court, the centralisation of essential court operations has had a devastating impact on the delivery of justice, entrenching the postcode lottery and results in debilitating delays for all parties. The current methods of contacting a county court do not work. Users cannot find the necessary contact information, and centralised inboxes and phone numbers appear unmonitored as they fail to provide the required response rate. (Conclusion, Paragraph 53)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it already publishes some information on claimant representation status and will review existing court data to consider whether further granular data can be made available.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
11
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
The CNBC must be integrated with local court case management systems to improve coordination and responsiveness. Allocated claims handlers and a clear point of contact must be introduced to ensure claimants can speak with someone knowledgeable and responsible for their case as it progresses through the County Court system. (Recommendation, …
Read more
The CNBC must be integrated with local court case management systems to improve coordination and responsiveness. Allocated claims handlers and a clear point of contact must be introduced to ensure claimants can speak with someone knowledgeable and responsible for their case as it progresses through the County Court system. (Recommendation, Paragraph 54)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government details work by the Online Procedure Rules Committee on new procedure rules for digital services, provides existing grant funding for legal support, and commits to working with the judiciary on further guidance and considering AI support for this program from October.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
12
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
‘Court and tribunal’ finder must be updated with up-to-date information about each county court, what type of claims they hear and all essential contact information. (Recommendation, Paragraph 55) 56 Judicial and staff capacity
Government response AI summary
The government committed to providing a spending breakdown to the committee by March 2026 and highlighted increased funding for court capital maintenance, but did not address the recommendation about updating the court finder with specific court information.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
13
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
While we welcome the recent introduction of location-based advertising for full-time judicial roles, the civil judiciary is no longer an attractive profession. It is vital more is done to attract high performing candidates to the district-bench. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64)
Read more
While we welcome the recent introduction of location-based advertising for full-time judicial roles, the civil judiciary is no longer an attractive profession. It is vital more is done to attract high performing candidates to the district-bench. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated it would review the data it collects on the condition of the court estate and consider improvements, with outcomes provided by March 2026, but did not address the recommendation on attracting high-performing candidates to judicial roles.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
14
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
Any review into the County Court must include an evaluation of its judicial recruitment offer. This has to consider pay and progression opportunities, an assessment of the current working conditions, and evaluate the regional recruitment initiatives. (Recommendation, Paragraph 65)
Read more
Any review into the County Court must include an evaluation of its judicial recruitment offer. This has to consider pay and progression opportunities, an assessment of the current working conditions, and evaluate the regional recruitment initiatives. (Recommendation, Paragraph 65)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated it is developing an accessibility strategy for courts and tribunals services and investing over £1 million in lift replacement projects in 2025/26, but did not address the recommendation for a review of the County Court's judicial recruitment offer.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
15
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
The Committee would like to pay tribute to the dedication and hard work of frontline staff in the County Court. However, the current staffing crisis in HMCTS is untenable, impeding its ability to support County Court users and ensuring efficient access to justice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 74)
Read more
The Committee would like to pay tribute to the dedication and hard work of frontline staff in the County Court. However, the current staffing crisis in HMCTS is untenable, impeding its ability to support County Court users and ensuring efficient access to justice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 74)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated that a system for requesting reasonable adjustments is already in place for court users, but did not address the concern about the staffing crisis in HMCTS.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
16
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
A future review must include an in-depth assessment of the recruitment and retention crisis of the County Court, extending the existing discussions regarding HMCTS pay scales to include assessments of current and required workload capacities ensuring any additional resource is effectively allocated where it is needed most. This assessment needs …
Read more
A future review must include an in-depth assessment of the recruitment and retention crisis of the County Court, extending the existing discussions regarding HMCTS pay scales to include assessments of current and required workload capacities ensuring any additional resource is effectively allocated where it is needed most. This assessment needs to learn from areas of good practice such as Wales, and Manchester, and understand why these areas are more successful in retaining staff. (Recommendation, Paragraph 75) Access to justice
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government outlined HMCTS's approach to designing digital services, which includes user research and co-design in line with the Government Service Standard, but did not address the recommendation for an assessment of the County Court's recruitment and retention crisis.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
17
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
Despite persistent calls, litigants-in-person are not adequately supported through the court process. The language used in court applications is inaccessible, court procedure is not explained, and there is limited support available. The insufficient data collection on the prevalence of litigants-in- person means the Ministry of Justice cannot understand how to …
Read more
Despite persistent calls, litigants-in-person are not adequately supported through the court process. The language used in court applications is inaccessible, court procedure is not explained, and there is limited support available. The insufficient data collection on the prevalence of litigants-in- person means the Ministry of Justice cannot understand how to direct and provide the support needed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 85)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government highlighted benefits of existing digital services and the new Civil Auto File Share (CAFS) system for modernising civil case file handling, but did not specifically address the lack of adequate support, accessible language, or data collection for litigants-in-person.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
18
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
HMCTS must increase the collection and publication of data on litigants-in- person. This needs to include the type of claim, timeliness of issue to trial or settlement, and court location. (Recommendation, Paragraph 86)
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged the value of real-time status updates for users and confirmed their availability on new digital services and planned introduction for possession digitalisation, but did not commit to increasing the collection and publication of data specifically on litigants-in-person.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
19
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
The Ministry of Justice and Civil Justice Council must publish guidance for litigants-in-person. It needs to explain the claims process, their responsibilities, and the implications of failing to comply with deadlines. This must be written in clear, accessible language and be available in accessible formats. (Recommendation, Paragraph 87) 57 Condition …
Read more
The Ministry of Justice and Civil Justice Council must publish guidance for litigants-in-person. It needs to explain the claims process, their responsibilities, and the implications of failing to comply with deadlines. This must be written in clear, accessible language and be available in accessible formats. (Recommendation, Paragraph 87) 57 Condition of the court estate
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated HMCTS is updating Reform systems to provide consistent case reference numbers for users, but did not address the recommendation to publish specific guidance for litigants-in-person.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
20
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
It is unacceptable that the court estate has been allowed to enter such disrepair due to years of capital underfunding. While we welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement of the “chronic” underinvestment within the court estate, this Government must end the cycle of underfunding. (Conclusion, Paragraph 99)
Read more
It is unacceptable that the court estate has been allowed to enter such disrepair due to years of capital underfunding. While we welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement of the “chronic” underinvestment within the court estate, this Government must end the cycle of underfunding. (Conclusion, Paragraph 99)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government detailed the Civil Auto File Share (CAFS) project, which is introducing a new system to increase electronic document management and streamline workflows within the Civil National Business Centre, but did not address the concerns about the disrepair and underfunding of the physical court …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
21
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
We are concerned by HMCTS’ failure to recognise the importance of the condition of the physical estate for both the functioning of courts and the public’s perception of civil justice. We have both seen and heard of unacceptable examples of poorly maintained court buildings, its impact on staff morale, and …
Read more
We are concerned by HMCTS’ failure to recognise the importance of the condition of the physical estate for both the functioning of courts and the public’s perception of civil justice. We have both seen and heard of unacceptable examples of poorly maintained court buildings, its impact on staff morale, and the ability to deliver swift access to justice. We are concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding capital funding announcements in tackling the £1.3 billion court maintenance backlog and how successful its Estate Strategy will be in handling the scale of the backlog. (Conclusion, Paragraph 100)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explained the document upload limits for new digital systems and committed to reviewing the current lower limit for email submissions, but did not address the concerns about the condition of the physical court estate, maintenance backlog, or funding transparency.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
22
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
We recommend that the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS publish a detailed breakdown of how the £220 million in capital funding was spent between March 2023 and March 2025. The breakdown should include further information as to the type of maintenance and repairs completed, and at which courts they were …
Read more
We recommend that the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS publish a detailed breakdown of how the £220 million in capital funding was spent between March 2023 and March 2025. The breakdown should include further information as to the type of maintenance and repairs completed, and at which courts they were completed, to aid transparency in Government spending. This detailed breakdown must be published by the end of March
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response discussed a pilot for mandatory small claims mediation and its future evaluation, completely unrelated to the recommendation on capital funding for court maintenance.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
23
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
HMCTS must collect and publish regular data on the condition of the court estate. This is imperative to informing preventative repairs. (Recommendation, Paragraph 102)
Government response AI summary
The government's response discussed a project for a digital case management and e-Filing solution in the High Court, which is unrelated to collecting and publishing data on the condition of the court estate.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
24
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Deferred
We recognise the difficulty in retrofitting old court buildings to meet the required accessibility standards set out in Section 20 of the Equality Act
Government response AI summary
The government's response, despite stating 'Accept in part,' detailed its AI Action Plan for Justice and various AI pilots, which is unrelated to the committee's conclusion regarding the difficulty of retrofitting old court buildings for accessibility.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
25
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Acknowledged
All works to increase accessibility, in all of its aspects, of the court estate must be prioritised and delivered at pace. It is not satisfactory for lift repairs to take months, or for disabled users to be taken through back entrances in order to access the County Court. Any review …
Read more
All works to increase accessibility, in all of its aspects, of the court estate must be prioritised and delivered at pace. It is not satisfactory for lift repairs to take months, or for disabled users to be taken through back entrances in order to access the County Court. Any review must cover accessibility for both users and staff. There should be measurable targets, a clear timeline and a fully costed budget for such improvements to be made. (Recommendation, Paragraph 111)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated it is focusing on tangible steps to improve the County Court and highlighted general operational improvements, but it did not commit to specific measurable targets, timelines, or a costed budget for accessibility works as requested.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
26
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
HMCTS must introduce a standardised process by which Court and judicial listing staff proactively engage with court users on any access requirements for litigants, witnesses or legal practitioners prior to listing cases. (Recommendation, Paragraph 112) 58 Digitisation
Read more
HMCTS must introduce a standardised process by which Court and judicial listing staff proactively engage with court users on any access requirements for litigants, witnesses or legal practitioners prior to listing cases. (Recommendation, Paragraph 112) 58 Digitisation
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the objective but states that a system is already in place for court users to notify HMCTS of any reasonable adjustment requests, with the process outlined on the GOV.UK website.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
27
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Acknowledged
The Reform programme was over ambitious and ultimately under-delivered. We acknowledge the diverse range of jurisdictions that fall within the County Court which may have contributed to the challenges the programme faced. However, we are not satisfied with HMCTS’ evidence: it offered weak justifications and failed to adequately acknowledge the …
Read more
The Reform programme was over ambitious and ultimately under-delivered. We acknowledge the diverse range of jurisdictions that fall within the County Court which may have contributed to the challenges the programme faced. However, we are not satisfied with HMCTS’ evidence: it offered weak justifications and failed to adequately acknowledge the extent to which the Reform Programme failed to deliver the necessary, and promised, digital transformation of the County Court. (Conclusion, Paragraph 126)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the committee's findings and states that HMCTS has learned lessons from the Reform programme, adjusting and improving its approach to designing future digital services through user research, co-design, piloting, and testing.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
28
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Acknowledged
The civil projects that were delivered under the Reform programme were not sufficiently tested with practitioners in mind. As a result, the avoidable failures of Reform have led to unacceptable amounts of dual running, with one claim requiring interactions with multiple systems, and further inefficiencies in the County Court. (Conclusion, …
Read more
The civil projects that were delivered under the Reform programme were not sufficiently tested with practitioners in mind. As a result, the avoidable failures of Reform have led to unacceptable amounts of dual running, with one claim requiring interactions with multiple systems, and further inefficiencies in the County Court. (Conclusion, Paragraph 127)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the committee's findings and confirms that HMCTS has learned from the Reform programme, now adopting an improved approach to designing digital services that includes extensive user research, co-design, piloting, and testing for all future reforms.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
29
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
All future digital reforms must be co-designed with users and stakeholders and should not be rolled out until they have proven reliable through extensive piloting and testing. (Recommendation, Paragraph 128)
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the recommendation, affirming that HMCTS's approach to designing digital services already involves extensive user research, co-design with users, and thorough piloting and testing, which will continue for all future digital reforms.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
30
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
The Ministry of Justice must, as a matter of urgency, review all descoped work and prioritise its digitisation. Without this, we are left with an incomplete and inefficient system at significant public expense. (Recommendation, Paragraph 129)
Government response AI summary
The government states HMCTS has reviewed the descoped civil work, acknowledges the need for further digitalization, and is implementing the Civil Auto File Share (CAFS) system to modernize case file handling and improve efficiency.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
31
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted in Part
A single case management system must be introduced to provide real time status updates for all cases, integrating both Reform and legacy systems. (Recommendation, Paragraph 130)
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the recommendation in principle, stating real-time status updates are available on new digital services and will be introduced as part of possession digitalisation, but does not explicitly commit to a single system integrating all legacy and Reform cases.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
32
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
It is very difficult to understand why the County Court continues to rely on paper files, which need to be shipped around the country at great cost. Paper is a serious cause of the delays in the County Court, caused by a “patchwork” of systems and case reference numbers, and …
Read more
It is very difficult to understand why the County Court continues to rely on paper files, which need to be shipped around the country at great cost. Paper is a serious cause of the delays in the County Court, caused by a “patchwork” of systems and case reference numbers, and standing at direct odds with the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to digital transformation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 136)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the concern and is already implementing the Civil Auto File Share (CAFS) project to digitize paper files, enable electronic transfer between courts, and work towards a fully paperless Civil National Business Centre.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
33
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted in Part
All claims must be issued a single reference number regardless of the “off-ramps and on-ramps” between paper and digital systems. (Recommendation, Paragraph 137)
Government response AI summary
The government accepts in part, stating that HMCTS systems use different case numbers but they are updating Reform systems to ensure users are provided with the correct applicable reference numbers for each case, regardless of system transitions.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
34
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
Use of postal services for sending paper files must be replaced with email or other electronic methods. Postal options should be an opt-in service as already implemented across multiple Government agencies to effectively mitigate against digital exclusion. (Recommendation, Paragraph 138)
Read more
Use of postal services for sending paper files must be replaced with email or other electronic methods. Postal options should be an opt-in service as already implemented across multiple Government agencies to effectively mitigate against digital exclusion. (Recommendation, Paragraph 138)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the recommendation and is rolling out the Civil Auto File Share (CAFS) project via Microsoft PowerApps to increase electronic document management, aiming to eliminate reliance on physical post and ensure electronic transfer of case files.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
35
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
HMCTS must enhance existing electronic systems to support the upload of larger documents for all types of claims heard in the County Court. (Recommendation, Paragraph 139) 59 Other opportunities for reform
Government response AI summary
The government accepts, stating that new digital systems already support most documents with limits of 1GB for documents and 500MB for multimedia, and they will complete a review of the more restrictive limits for email submissions.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
36
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
Mediation is a viable out of court route with early signs of success in the County Court. It offers claimants a quicker route to seeking justice, one not beset by delays or missing files. (Conclusion, Paragraph 146)
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the conclusion, noting that a pilot for mandatory small claims mediation is in place until May 2026 and will be evaluated to inform decisions on its extension or expansion to other claim types.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
37
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
As part of any future review into the County Court, an evaluation of mandatory mediation must be undertaken to understand whether it can be effectively deployed in other claim types. (Recommendation, Paragraph 147)
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the recommendation, stating that an evaluation and review of the mandatory mediation pilot (running until May 2026) will be undertaken, with findings informing decisions on future expansion to other claim types.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
38
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted in Part
Despite the bold ambitions of the Ministry of Justice, the piecemeal approach that has been taken to digitisation hampers any intentions of adopting a fully digital court process. Existing systems inhibit the early adoption of AI or a move to digital court bundles despite the innovation occurring in the legal …
Read more
Despite the bold ambitions of the Ministry of Justice, the piecemeal approach that has been taken to digitisation hampers any intentions of adopting a fully digital court process. Existing systems inhibit the early adoption of AI or a move to digital court bundles despite the innovation occurring in the legal sector. (Conclusion, Paragraph 154)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts in part, detailing the AI Action Plan for Justice published in July 2025 which outlines a responsible approach to AI adoption across the justice system, and highlighting ongoing HMCTS pilots for AI-powered solutions to improve court operations.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
39
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
Following the completion of the £1 billion Reform Programme, HMCTS must prioritise the roll out of existing systems from other jurisdictions, such as CE Filing, which are well-regarded by legal professionals. These should not be replaced for the sake of change alone; instead, efforts must focus on integration and interoperability, …
Read more
Following the completion of the £1 billion Reform Programme, HMCTS must prioritise the roll out of existing systems from other jurisdictions, such as CE Filing, which are well-regarded by legal professionals. These should not be replaced for the sake of change alone; instead, efforts must focus on integration and interoperability, ensuring successful tools are preserved and enhanced. (Recommendation, Paragraph 155)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts and has a project underway to continue providing a digital case management and e-Filing solution in the High Court, with a key requirement for improved operability with existing Civil, Family, and Tribunals platforms.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
40
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
The Ministry of Justice must launch a consultation, into how it plans to effectively use AI to improve the performance and operations of the County Court and report its conclusions by the end of 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 156) Conclusions on the Work of the County Court
Read more
The Ministry of Justice must launch a consultation, into how it plans to effectively use AI to improve the performance and operations of the County Court and report its conclusions by the end of 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 156) Conclusions on the Work of the County Court
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts in part, stating that the Ministry of Justice has already conducted consultations and published the AI Action Plan for Justice in July 2025, which outlines their approach and ongoing pilots for AI adoption in the justice system.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
41
Conclusion
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Rejected
The County Court is the ‘Cinderella service’ of the justice system in England and Wales. It is beset by delays as a result of a failed attempt at digital reform, recruitment and retention issues, and a complex and dysfunctional “patchwork” of outdated paper-based and digital systems. (Conclusion, Paragraph 157)
Read more
The County Court is the ‘Cinderella service’ of the justice system in England and Wales. It is beset by delays as a result of a failed attempt at digital reform, recruitment and retention issues, and a complex and dysfunctional “patchwork” of outdated paper-based and digital systems. (Conclusion, Paragraph 157)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for a root and branch review, preferring to focus on practical steps to improve the County Court's operation, highlighting improvements already seen in timeliness, call waiting times, mediation, and case management.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
42
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Accepted
The causes of the inefficiencies and delays in the County Court are well- established, and openly recognised by Ministers and officials, yet it is unclear how HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), together with the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, intends to address them. The recent reviews into both …
Read more
The causes of the inefficiencies and delays in the County Court are well- established, and openly recognised by Ministers and officials, yet it is unclear how HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), together with the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, intends to address them. The recent reviews into both sentencing and the criminal courts, highlight an absence of any attention or commitment to improving the dire situation currently facing the County Court. The Committee found that such problems would 60 be all the greater without the highly commendable efforts of court staff to operate a system that ultimately fails to deliver civil justice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 158)
Show less
Government response AI summary
HMCTS is exploring the development of predictive analytical tools, underpinned by machine learning, to support better administration of listing.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
43
Recommendation
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Rejected
We recommend an urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch review of the County Court. This review must be launched by Spring 2026 and encompass recruitment and retention challenges within both the Judiciary and HMCTS, establish a realistic and sustainable plan for future digitisation and capital investment, and explore the future role of …
Read more
We recommend an urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch review of the County Court. This review must be launched by Spring 2026 and encompass recruitment and retention challenges within both the Judiciary and HMCTS, establish a realistic and sustainable plan for future digitisation and capital investment, and explore the future role of artificial intelligence. The overarching goal must be to reduce the systemic delays and inefficiencies entrenched across the County Court. It is not tenable to continue without fundamental reform. (Recommendation, Paragraph 159) 61
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation for a root-and-branch review, stating they prefer to focus on tangible and practical steps already underway to improve County Court operations, such as improved timeliness of claims, call waiting times, and case management systems.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice