num_pages: 1
description: In Britain the costs of justice - to taxpayers and litigants - have been rising faster than GDP.For efficiency reasons and to encourage innovation, reform is required and some action is already underway. But reform is complicated because 'justice' is a complex product - bought on 'trust' by many consumers and with precedent and spillover effects. Some good ideas for reform are already in circulation. But there is a case for experimentation rather than trying to work out in advance which ideas should be implemented. Market forces should have a bigger role in the civil justice system and there should be more competition in the provision of dispute resolution services. Probable features of a reformed judicial system would be competitive tendering, better information for clients about alternative ways of proceeding and more power for trial judges to control the passage of a case. The supply of judges also needs to be addressed: court fees could be determined by market forces and the proceeds ploughed back into judicial capacity. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures allow parties a choice of jurisdictions. ADR produces precedents, to the extent they are required, and does not need the threat of litigation in the background. A big advantage of ADR is that it avoids monopolized law which otherwise tends to produce inflexibility, bad rules and politicization. In this Hobart Paper, Professors Brian Main and Sir Alan Peacock - two distinguished economists with interests in legal issues - use economic principles to great effect in exploring the efficiency of the civil justice system and ways in which a more innovative regime might be introduced.
language: English
title: What Price Civil Justice?
titlecomplete: What Price Civil Justice? (HOBART PAPERS)
publisher: Institute Of Economic Affairs