Source: https://victims-unite.net/press-releases/stories-in-print/have-the-woolf-reforms-worked/
Timestamp: 2017-07-28 10:57:25
Document Index: 194193496

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 7', 'ART 8', 'ART 3', 'ART 7', 'ART 8', 'ART 23', 'ART 52', 'ART 54', 'ART 3', 'ART 7', 'ART 8', 'ART 23', 'ART 52', 'ART 54']

Have the Woolf reforms worked? | Victims Unite!
The changes made ten years ago have been a disaster for the civil justice system and need a radical rethink
Access to justice is central to the democratic process… This is the beginning of an article in The Times that may be too technical for many.
But at least it’s critical of what is, albeit not as much as we all are…
Share this:TwitterFacebookRedditEmailLinkedInGoogleTumblrPinterestPocketPrintLike this:Like Loading...	3 Responses to Have the Woolf reforms worked?
Pingback: Victims Unite! Empowering Victims of Financial Exploitation and Legal Oppression |
Stanley Embling says:	February 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm	The Woolf reforms have not worked, I know I became one of the first victims of such in October 1999…..
Reply	Ismail Bhamjee says:	September 10, 2012 at 9:09 pm	THE WOOLF REFORMS HAVE CAUSED INDIRECT AND DIRECT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LITIGANTS IN PERSON WHERE LEGAL AID FUNDING HAS BEEN ABOLISHED.
SECTION 55 OF THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 1999 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED, SINCE WHEN LITIGANTS IN PERSON REQUEST THE PART 7 OR PART 8 CLAIM FORM TO BE ASSIGNED TO A HIGH COURT JUDGE, THE COURT OFFICER NORMALLY REFUSES AND INSISTS THAT THE MATTER SHALL BE PLACED BEFORE A MASTER.
SECTION 41 (2) (5) (A) (B) (C) (D) OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE ACT 2001 IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PART 3, PART 7, PART 8, PART 23, PART 52, AND PART 54
THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002, THE TIME LIMIT IS A PERIOD OF 20 YEARS, WHILST PERMISSION TO APPEAL IS NOT REQUIRED, BUT LITIGANTS IN PERSON ARE REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
INDIVIDUAL APPEALS IS TAKEN AS BEING REPRESENTED BY A PROFESSIONAL LAWYER.
Section 119 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is not mentioned in the CPR PART 3, PART 7, PART 8, PART 23, PART 52 AND PART 54 RULES.
There is a House of Lords Judgment that Advocates have no Immunity whether Civil or Criminal Proceedings, and by Taking Legal Proceedings against the Barristers Advocates does not mean that the Person is Vexatious or Harassing the Barrister, when Section 2, 15, 16 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 was repealed under the Family Law Act 1986, and the Court had no Power to dismiss a Petition under Section 55 (1) (d) of the Family Law Act 1986