Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
4th Report - Work of the County Court
Justice Committee
HC 677
Published 21 July 2025
Recommendations
22
Deferred
Publish a detailed breakdown of £220 million capital funding spent on court repairs and maintenance.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response 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.
Ministry of Justice
View Details →
Conclusions (12)
12
Conclusion
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 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.
13
Conclusion
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)
Government Response 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.
14
Conclusion
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)
Government Response 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.
15
Conclusion
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)
Government Response 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.
16
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
17
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
18
Conclusion
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 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.
19
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
20
Conclusion
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)
Government Response 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 estate.
21
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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.
23
Conclusion
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 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.
24
Conclusion
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 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.