Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly – April to June 2016
Source: data.gov.uk (2018-05-25)

Civil Justice Statistics. The bulletin presents the latest statistics on the type and volume of civil, judicial review and privacy injunction cases that are received and processed through the justice system of England and Wales.

Civil Justice Statistics 
Quarterly, England and Wales, 
April to June 2016  
(incorporating Privacy 
Injunction Statistics, January 
to June 2016) 
 
 
 
 
Ministry of Justice 
Statistics bulletin 
 
 
Published 1 September 2016 
 
 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
2 
Contents  
Contents 
2 
Introduction 
3 
Changes in reporting 
4 
Users of the statistics 
4 
Next publication 
4 
Key Findings 
5 
1: Civil (excluding family) cases 
6 
2: Judicial Reviews at the Administrative Court 
13 
3: Privacy Injunctions 
19 
Annex A: Planned upcoming changes to publication 
22 
Annex B: List of Accompanying Tables and CSV 
23 
Annex C: Timeline of changes to civil procedures 
24 
Annex D: Explanatory notes 
25 
Further information 
27 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
3 
Introduction 
This statistical bulletin presents statistics on three key areas of civil and 
administrative justice: 
 County court civil (non-family) cases that took place in England and 
Wales in April to June 2016; 
 Judicial review cases processed by the administrative court in 
England and Wales up to June 2016; 
 Privacy Injunction cases, dealt with by the High Court or Court of 
Appeal, for the six month period, January to June 2016. 
The figures give an overview of the volume of cases dealt with by these 
courts over time and are used to monitor court workloads, assist in the 
development of policy and their subsequent monitoring and evaluation.  
Civil cases covered by this publication are those that do not involve family 
matters or failure to pay council tax. These cases are mainly dealt with by 
county courts and typically relate to debt, the repossession of property, 
personal injury, the return of goods and insolvency. Particularly important, 
complex or substantial cases are instead dealt with in the High Court.  
Judicial reviews (JRs) are a process by which individuals, businesses and 
other affected parties can challenge the lawfulness of decisions or actions of 
the executive, including those of ministers, local authorities, other public 
bodies and those exercising public functions. It is a largely judge-developed 
procedure and can be characterised as the rule of law in action, providing a 
key mechanism for individuals to hold the executive to account. It is, 
however, intended to operate quickly and proportionately. Certain 
protections are in principle provided against spurious claims: only those with 
sufficient interest are able to bring a case and they must first obtain 
permission for their case to be heard.  
 
Privacy injunctions are used when a person or organisation who wishes to 
prevent the publication or dissemination of private or confidential information 
applies to the High Court for an injunction to stop this from occurring. Prior 
to March 2015, these statistics were previously published as a separate 
publication entitled ‘Statistics on Privacy Injunctions’. 
 
 
Information about the systems and data included in this publication can be 
found in ‘A Guide to Civil Court and Administrative Justice Statistics’ 
which is published alongside this report.  
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/guide-to-civil-and-administrative-justice-
statistics 
 
There is also a separate glossary published alongside this which provides 
brief definitions for the terms used in this report. Information regarding the 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
4 
symbols and conventions used in the bulletin are given in the explanatory 
notes section. 
Previous editions of Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly can be found here: 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly 
 
Changes in reporting 
From 6 April 2016, debtor petitions (whereby an individual files for 
bankruptcy) moved from the courts to an online system, and as a result are 
no longer recorded in these statistics. For numbers of debtor petitions and a 
more detailed breakdown of insolvency petitions in general, please see 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/insolvency-service-official-statistics. 
This bulletin includes for the first time an annual breakdown of the number 
of Judicial Reviews classed as ‘Totally Without Merit’ since 1 October 2012 
(Table 2.4). Previous publications provided a cumulative figure from 1 
October 2012.  
Due to data quality concerns, the judges sitting days statistics (judiciary 
chapter) for 2015 were not available at the time of the last publication (2 
June 2016) - these are now available and have been included in the 
previous quarter’s report within the Royal Courts of Justice tables, at the 
following link: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-
quarterly-january-to-march-2016-and-the-royal-courts-of-justice-2015. 
 
Users of the statistics 
The main users of these statistics are ministers and officials in central 
government responsible for developing policy with regards to civil and 
administrative justice. Other users include lawyers and academics, other 
central government departments such as the Department for Communities 
and Local Government, and non-governmental bodies, including various 
voluntary organisations with an interest in civil and administrative justice.  
 
Next publication 
The next publication of Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly is scheduled to be 
published on 1 December 2016, covering the period July to September 
2016. 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
5 
Key Findings 
Civil cases 
 In April to June 2016, courts dealt with around 397,500 claims, up 8% 
on the same quarter in the previous year, driven by an increase in 
specified money claims (up 12% over the same period). 
 During the same quarter there were around 227,000 judgments, a 17% 
increase on the same quarter in 2015. This is driven by the increase in 
specified money claims, which have the greatest likelihood of reaching 
the judgment stage of any claim type (usually default judgments). 
 Non-money claims are at their lowest quarterly level since January to 
March 2000, when the quarterly breakdowns began.  This has been 
driven by a continued drop in mortgage and landlord possession claims, 
which stood at around 38,500 in April to June 2016 (down 6% on the 
same quarter last year).      
 In April to June 2016, both the claimant and defendant had legal 
representation in 56% of all defences and neither had representation in 
18% of defences (both down one percentage point on the same quarter 
last year). Defences where only the claimant had representation 
accounted for 22% (an increase by two percentage over the same 
period).  
 There were 1,940 insolvency petitions in April to June 2016. This shows 
a 62% decrease on the same quarter last year, which has been caused 
by debtor petitions moving to an online system on 6 April 2016, and are 
no longer heard in court 
Judicial reviews at the Administrative Court 
 During the first half of 2016, there were around 2,220 applications 
lodged in the administrative court, a 4% increase on the same period of 
2015. 
 
 In the first half of 2016, around 1,000 cases (45% of all cases lodged) 
reached the permission or oral renewal stage.  Of those that reached 
these stages, 20% were found to be totally without merit.  This is level 
with the proportion seen annually in 2015 (where 78% of all cases 
lodged reached the permission or oral renewal stage)  
Privacy Injunctions 
 During January to June 2016, there were two applications for new 
interim privacy injunctions and no applications for continuation of an 
injunction or applications for a final privacy injunction. 
 Two appeals were heard in the Court of Appeal against a grant or refusal 
of an interim or final injunction and one appeal was heard by the 
Supreme Court. All three appeals relate to the same interim privacy 
injunction case, which took place in the same period (January to June 
2016). 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
6 
1: Civil (excluding family) cases 
A civil claim against a person or a company (the defendant) starts when a 
person or company (the claimant) completes and submits a claim form to 
the county court. This can be done either in person or online (for money and 
possession claims only). A copy of the claim form along with a response 
pack is sent to (served on) the defendant who has 14 days to respond to the 
claim. For money claims, if the defendant disputes (defends) the claim (in 
full or part) and mediation fails, the case is allocated by a judge to one of 
three case-management tracks (small claims track (for claims with a value 
less that £10K), fast track or multi track). Allocated cases which are not 
settled or withdrawn generally result in a small claim hearing or trial. A 
judgment regarding the claim can be made at various stages of the process. 
There are various methods of enforcing a judgment through the county 
courts including warrants and charging orders. 
As supplementary information, we also provide the percentage of claims 
issued in a quarter or year that have already resulted in a defence, 
allocation or hearing or trial. Caution should be exercised when interpreting 
these figures for recent years. The information contained in the bulletin is 
based on the available data when the database was extracted; 
consequently a proportion of claims made in more recent quarters are still 
awaiting progression to the next stage of court action. Claims from earlier 
periods will have had longer for the case to be processed than those from 
more recent periods so a lower proportion of these earlier claims are likely 
to be still awaiting a defence, allocation or hearing or trial. 
 
Number of claims issued 
In April to June 2016, a total of 397,504 claims were issued, an 8% increase 
on the same quarter last year (see Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1). This is the 
highest second quarter total since 2006. Looking at the longer term 
annually, there was a general downward trend in the total number of claims 
between 2006 and 2012, which has since reversed (albeit with a slight 
decrease of 2% in 2015 compared to 2014).  Figures for the first half of 
2016 suggest a continuation of the increasing trend.  
In April to June 2016, 83% of all claims were money claims, an increase of 
two percentage points on the same quarter in 2015. Of these money claims, 
90% (294,181) related to claims for specified amounts of money (two 
percentage points higher than the same quarter last year).  The sharp 
increase in the number of specified money claims (up 12% from the same 
quarter last year) has driven the increase seen in total claims this quarter. 
The remaining 10% of money claims related to unspecified money claims, 
down two percentage points from the same quarter last year (Table 1.2). 
Unspecified money claims include personal injury, which make up the 
overwhelming majority of these claims. In April to June 2016, 94% of 
unspecified money claims were for personal injury, around the same level 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
7 
seen in April to June 2015. This proportion has been consistent since the 
second quarter of 2012, when the County Court Money Claims Centre 
(CCMCC) took over the processing of the money claims and more 
accurately recorded personal injury claims (Table 1.2). Personal injury 
claims were down 5% on the same quarter of 2015. 
In April to June 2016, there were 69,071 non-money claims, down 2% on 
the same quarter in 2015, and at its lowest quarterly total since 2000. 
Annually, this figure dropped from an average of just under 400,000 
between 2000 and 2008 to an average of just under 329,000 between 2009 
and 2014. In 2015, the number of non-money claims fell further to 299,104. 
This decrease can be partially explained by the fall in mortgage and landlord 
possession claims; there were 38,438 such claims in the most recent 
quarter, also the lowest quarterly total since 2000, and a 6% decrease on 
the same quarter in 2015. This coincided with lower interest rates, a 
proactive approach from mortgage lenders in managing consumers in 
financial difficulties, and various interventions, such as introduction of the 
Mortgage Pre-Action Protocol1 that encouraged more pre-action contact 
between lender and borrower (Table 1.2).  
There were 1,941 insolvency petitions2 (excluding in the Royal Courts of 
Justice) in April to June 2016. This shows a 62% decrease on the same 
quarter last year, which has been caused by debtor petitions moving to an 
online system on 6 April 2016, and are no longer heard in court3.  
                                            
1 For more information on mortgage and landlord possession statistics trends and the 
Mortgage Pre-Action Protocol please see Annex B of the Mortgage and landlord 
possession statistics publication.   
2 Insolvency petitions relate to bankruptcy or companies “winding up” 
3 For numbers of debtor petitions and a more detailed breakdown of insolvency petitions in 
general, please see www.gov.uk/government/collections/insolvency-service-official-
statistics 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
8 
Figure 1.1: Civil claims, defences, allocations and trials, January 2009 
to June 2016 (quarterly)  
 
Number of defences, allocations, trials and judgments  
In April to June 2016, there were 69,968 defences made, 7% more than 
during the same quarter in 2015. Looking at the longer term, there has been 
a general downward annual trend since the peak of just under 340,000 in 
2007, with the 2014 figure being 264,701. Since 2014, the annual number of 
defences has remained stable, with 264,545 defences in 2015.   
For money claims, if the claim is defended, further information is usually 
provided by each of the parties, after which the case is allocated by a judge 
to one of three case-management tracks. In April to June 2016, a total of 
35,873 allocations were made, only 132 more than the same period last 
year (Table 1.3). Of the allocations made; 
 Just under half (16,511, or 46%) were to the small claims track, three 
percentage points less than in the same quarter of 2015. This track is 
generally for cases with a claim value of up to £10,0004 which require 
less preparation by the parties involved than the more complex cases 
allocated to the fast or multi track. The trials are designed to be 
                                            
4 On 1 April 2013 due to a policy change, the maximum claim value for cases allocated to 
the small claims track increased from £5,000 to £10,000.  

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
9 
accessible to people who do not have representation by a solicitor or 
counsel, and are dealt with in about an hour.  
 45% (16,051) of claims were allocated to the fast track, an increase 
of five percentage points from the same quarter in 2015. This track is 
generally for cases with a claim value of between £10,000 and not 
more than £25,000, with issues not complex enough to merit more 
than a one day trial.  
 9% (3,311) of claims were allocated to the multi-track, compared with 
12% on the same quarter of 2015. This track is generally for cases 
with a claim value exceeding £25,000 with more complex issues. 
They generally last more than one day at trial.  
In April to June 2016, a total of 227,205 judgments were made, up 17% on 
the same period last year.  This is primarily driven by the increase seen in 
specified money claims, which have the greatest likelihood of reaching the 
judgment stage of any claim type (usually default judgments).  Annually, the 
number of judgments fell between 2009 and 2012, but this has since begun 
to show an increase. In 2015, there were 867,665 judgments made, an 
increase of 4% compared to 2014 (Table 1.4).  
Defended cases which are not settled or withdrawn generally result in a trial 
(Table 1.5). In total, there were 12,109 trials (of all types) in April to June 
2016, up 5% on the same quarter in 2015.  
In April to June 2016, 8,367 small claims trials took place, level with the 
same quarter in 2015. On average, these trials occurred 31.7 weeks after 
the claim was originally made. This is similar to the average time taken in 
April to June 2015 (31.8 weeks). 
Fast and multi-track trials (of which there were 3,742 in April to June 2016, 
an increase of 20% on April to June 2015) occurred on average 54.3 weeks 
after the claim was originally made (Table 1.5).    
Enforcement 
There are various methods of enforcing a judgment through the county 
courts. The most common method of enforcing a monetary judgment is the 
warrant of execution against a debtor’s goods. This is where, unless the 
amount owed is paid, items owned by the debtor can be recovered by a 
bailiff acting on behalf of the court and sold.  
The number of warrants issued has followed a generally decreasing trend 
since 2000, until mid-2014 to mid-2015 when numbers increased.  Since Q3 
2015, the number of warrants issued per quarter has remained relatively 
stable until this quarter.  During April to June 2016, there were 77,422 
warrants issued, representing a 4% increase on the same quarter last year 
(Table 1.4).   
Alternatively, various types of court orders can be obtained:  

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
10 
 
Attachment of earnings orders enable payment through the debtor’s 
employer. 
 
Third party debt orders enable payment by freezing and then seizing 
money owed by a third party to the debtor. 
 
Charging orders obtain security for the payment against the debtor’s 
assets. This may be followed by an order for sale which forces the 
sale of these assets.  
 
In April to June 2016, 24,687 enforcement orders were made, a decrease of 
24% compared to the same period last year. This figure has been generally 
falling since 2008.  
Legal representation  
Figures on the legal representation of parties in civil (non-family) related 
court cases are shown in Table 1.6. This gives the number of claims 
defended during each quarter, for specified money claims, unspecified 
money claims, mortgage and landlord possession and other non-money 
claims, and, according to whether the applicant(s), respondent(s), both, or 
neither had legal representation during the case.  
In April to June 2016, both the claimant and defendant had legal 
representation in 56% of defences, whilst neither the respondent nor the 
claimant had representation in 18% of defences (compared with 57% and 
19% respectively compared to the same quarter in 2015). Defences with 
either the claimant or defendant only represented were 20% and 4% of all 
defences respectively in this most recent quarter, compared to 22% and 4% 
respectively in the same period last year.  
Figure 1.2 shows the proportion of defences broken down by representation 
status in England and Wales. 
Figure 1.2: Proportion of civil defences and legal representation 
status, January 2013 to June 2016 (quarterly) 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
11 
 
Changes to legal aid came into effect as of April 2013, and removed legal 
aid eligibility for some civil cases. Figures show that the proportion of 
defences with legal representation for both parties initially fell during 2013, 
but had recovered back to levels seen prior to the legal aid eligibility 
changes by July to September 2014. Since then a downward trend can be 
seen, corresponding with an increase in proportion claimant only 
representation defences.   
 
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA - formerly the Legal Services Commission) 
collects statistics on those applying for legal aid, and figures on the number 
of applications received and certificates granted by various civil categories. 
These are published in their quarterly statistical report which can be found 
here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/legal-aid-statistics  
 
Figure 1.3: Proportion of civil defences, by type of case and legal 
representation status, England and Wales, April to June 2016 
 
 
The proportion of legal representation for defences is dependent on the type 
of claim. For example, in almost all unspecified money claim defences 
(97%) both the respondent and claimant had legal representation. For the 
other types of defences, legal representation status was more evenly 
distributed, although mortgage and landlord possession defences were 
more likely to have no legal representation for either the respondent or the 
claimant.  
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
12 
Civil proceedings in the Magistrates’ Courts 
Magistrates’ courts deal with criminal and some civil cases, and cases are 
dealt with either by justices of the peace, who are unqualified and who are 
paid only expenses, or by District Judges who receive some payment. 
Magistrates can deal with a limited number of civil cases such as arrears of 
income tax, national insurance contributions, council tax or payments of 
child maintenance.  
There were 15,375 completed civil proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court in 
April to June 2016, a 4% increase on the same period last year (Table 1.2). 
It should be noted that a proceeding can either relate to a single case or 
multiple cases, so the numbers of cases completed is greater than the 
number of completed proceedings.  

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
13 
2: Judicial Reviews at the Administrative Court 
Judicial reviews (JRs) are a process by which individuals, businesses and 
other affected parties can challenge the lawfulness of decisions or actions of 
the Executive, including those of ministers, local authorities, other public 
bodies and those exercising public functions. It is a largely judge-developed 
procedure and can be characterised as the rule of law in action, providing a 
key mechanism for individuals to hold the Executive to account.  
This chapter tracks the progress of JRs lodged at the Administrative Court 
between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2016. The figures presented in this 
chapter exclude Judicial Reviews that are dealt with by the Upper Tribunal 
Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC), unless otherwise stated; 
however they are publicly available in a separate publication5.   
As the information included in this chapter has been extracted from a live 
database, all figures are refreshed each quarter and therefore there are 
minor revisions between the information presented here and in previous 
publications. 
Information for all years is provided in the supporting tables and CSV that 
accompany this publication. Please note for later years, cases may not have 
progressed to the end of the process, so the progression and timeliness 
figures for these cases should be treated with caution, in particular for 
applications lodged during the year 2015 and also 2016 to date, where a 
larger proportion of cases will not have been concluded. 
For more information on the Judicial Review process, including how topics 
are allocated to Immigration/Asylum and Other, please see the A Guide to 
Civil and Administrative Justice Statistics6.   
Applications for permission to apply for Judicial Review  
During the first six months of 2016, there were 2,222 applications for judicial 
review, a 4% increase on the same period of 2015. 
 
The overall annual trend (to 2013) in judicial review applications received 
had been steadily increasing, with the exception of a dip in 2004. In 2000, 
there were 4,238 applications for permission to apply for a JR and by 2013, 
this had risen to an annual intake of 15,594 (over a threefold increase) 
(Table 2.1). JR Civil (Immigration and Asylum) cases had been driving this 
increase, up from 2,151 in 2000 to 13,141 in 2013. However, in 2014 there 
was a trend change and a sharp decrease to 4,063 JR cases being lodged 
(down 74%).  This was due to a change implemented7 in November 2013, in 
                                            
5 Tribunal and Gender Recognition Certificate Statistics Quarterly: 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics 
6www.gov.uk/government/statistics/guide-to-civil-and-administrative-justice-statistics 
7 www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-building/administrative-court/applying-for-judicial-review 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
14 
which the Upper Tribunal for Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC) 
took over responsibility for the majority of Civil Immigration and Asylum 
Judicial Review cases. The reduction in Immigration and Asylum JR cases 
has resulted in a subsequent increase in Immigration and Asylum tribunal 
cases. In 2014/15, there were 15,179 JR receipts at the UTIAC, giving a 
total number of JRs across the Administrative Court and UTIAC of around 
20,000. More detailed figures on the number of JRs taking place in the 
UTIAC are published in the Tribunal and Gender Recognition Statistics 
Quarterly Publication. 
In the first half of 2016, 1,269 cases (57% of all JRs) were Civil Immigration 
and Asylum cases and 15 cases have been subsequently transferred to the 
UTIAC. 
 
Figure 2.1: Annual Judicial Review Applications, by type8 calendar 
year 2000-2015 
 
JR civil (other) cases have remained stable at around 2,000 cases annually, 
from 2005 to 2014. In 2015 there were 1,749 civil (other cases). JR criminal 
cases remained fairly stable from 2000 to 2011, fluctuating between 280-
370 cases each year. In 2012 it reached a peak of 384 cases and has since 
fallen to an all-time low of 261 cases in 2015. In April to June 2016, there 
have been 108 new cases for JR criminal and 845 for JR (civil) other. 
 
 
 
                                            
8 This chart excludes a small number of cases that could not be allocated to a type. 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
15 
Case progression (Table 2.2) 
Once a judicial review has been lodged, it then progresses through the 
process until it is concluded; the time this process will take will be different 
for each case9. 
The three main stages of the Judicial Review process once a case has been 
lodged are:  
 Permission stage - where the Court’s permission is required for a JR 
claim to proceed. This can be in the form of an oral or paper hearing.  
 Oral renewal stage - In cases where the Court refuses permission to 
proceed on the papers (either in full or in part); this is where the 
claimant requests that the decision be reconsidered at a hearing. 
 Final hearing – Where permission is granted for a case to proceed at 
either the permission or oral renewal stage, this is the point where 
cases are heard and a judgment is made. 
Please note, case progression figures can be affected by the case mix, 
which has changed over time and thus any previously observed trends 
should be viewed with caution. As an example different case types can have 
different mean lengths of timeliness. Civil judicial reviews for immigration 
and asylum rose from 51% of all cases in 2000 to 84% of all cases in 2013, 
and stood at 57% in 2015 - this type of case takes longer to complete, 
therefore overall mean timeliness will increase the greater proportion of 
these cases within the case mix. 
Also, the case progression figures will change each quarter as time allows 
for more cases to progress through the system.  
Permission stage 
 In 2000, 85% of judicial reviews lodged reached the permission stage 
and 29% were granted permission to proceed. These proportions 
decreased gradually over time to an all-time low in 2013 of 54% JRs 
reaching permission stage and 9% being granted permission to proceed.  
 Since the transfer of IA cases to the UTIAC (from November 2013) the 
proportion reaching the permission stage has increased, to 79% in 2014 
and 78% in 2015. Those granted permission to proceed were 16% and 
13% of cases lodged in 2014 and 2015 respectively. 
 In January to June 2016, the proportion reaching the permission stage 
stood at 45%, with 7% being granted permission to proceed to date. 
                                            
9 For more information see the following guide:  
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/guide-to-civil-and-administrative-justice-statistics 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
16 
Oral renewals 
 In 2000, 18% of all cases lodged were granted an oral renewal. This 
rose to 26% in 2001 and has fallen steadily to 10% in 2015, with the 
exception of 2012 where there was an increase to 17%.  
 A fee to renew the claim for an oral renewal was introduced in April 2014 
– this may be a contributing factor to the continuing downward trend in 
the number of claims progressing to the oral renewal stage.  
 Not all claims in which permission to apply for judicial review is refused 
are eligible for renewal.  Where a claim is considered by a judge to be 
totally without merit, the application for permission cannot be renewed to 
an oral hearing.  Similarly, where permission to apply for judicial review 
is refused in a case brought to challenge a decision of the Upper 
Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal, the application for permission 
cannot be renewed to an oral hearing. 
 In terms of those granted an oral renewal in 2000, 4% of all cases 
lodged received an oral renewal and were granted permission to 
proceed. This proportion has remained essentially stable ever since, and 
has been at 3% every year from 2008 to 2015, with the exception of 
2013 (when the proportion was 2%). In January to June 2016, 83 cases 
to date have reached the oral renewal stage, of which 27 have been 
granted permission to proceed.  
 
Final hearing  
 The proportion of cases eligible for a final hearing (granted permission to 
proceed at permission stage or oral renewal) has steadily reduced over 
time, from 33% in 2000 to 10% in 2013. The rate stood at 16% in 2015. 
To date 9% of cases have been eligible for final hearing in the first half of 
2016. 
 The proportion of all cases lodged found in favour of the claimant at a 
final hearing has reduced from 12% in 2000 to a low of 1% in 2013. In 
2014 it stood at 4% and then decreased again to 2% in 2015. In the first 
half of 2016, only 18 cases to date have reached the final hearing phase, 
and 7 of these were found in favour of the claimant.   
Timeliness (figure 2.2 and table 2.3)  
Timeliness figures are based on the date the judicial review is lodged to the 
date of various stages of the process. It is not a measure of the time the 
Administrative Court takes to deal with a judicial review as it also includes 
time taken for parties to the JR to provide evidence and any adjournments 
or postponements requested. Caution must be taken when interpreting the 
most recent data, particularly that for 2015 and 2016 to date, as not enough 
time has passed for all cases to reach each stage and those that have will 
be cases that are shorter in length - the average will therefore be lower than 
the true figure (97% of cases lodged in 2014 are classed as ‘Closed’, 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
17 
compared with 88% of cases lodged in 2015, and only 42% of those lodged 
so far in the first half of 2016). 
The mean time taken from lodging a case to the permission decision stage  
has remained relatively stable between 2006 and 2013 where the number 
was 118 and 126 days respectively (reaching a low of 89 in 2008 and 2010); 
prior to this, the number was stable at approximately 65 days. For those 
cases lodged in 2015 classed as closed (88% of cases lodged), the mean 
time taken has reduced back to pre-2006 levels, at 65 days. This may be 
driven by the reduced caseload, due to most of the Immigration and Asylum 
cases moving to the UTIAC. 
The mean time taken from lodging a case to the oral renewal stage decision 
has fluctuated over the years. From 2000-2004, the average time was 130 
days. This increased rapidly, up to a peak of 267 days in 2007. The figure 
then fell sharply to 180 days in 2008 before rising to an average of 229 days 
from 2009 to 2013. For those cases lodged in 2015 classed as closed (88% 
of cases lodged), the number has fallen to 138 days. 
The mean time taken from lodging a case to the final hearing decision 
showed a similar pattern; 205 days in 2000 peaking to 425 days in 2006 and 
fluctuating since then. The 2013 figure stood at 374, while the 2014 figure 
fell considerably to 254 days.  For the 88% of cases lodged in 2015 classed 
as closed, the mean timeliness has fallen to 209 days. 
Figure 2.2: Average time taken for each stage of the Judicial Review 
process, 2000 to 2015  
 
1 The average time taken to reach each stage is calculated using only those cases that have reached the stage in 
question. Figures for later years will change in future publications as cases progress through the system, 
especially for cases lodged in 2015. 
 
Please note that prior to 2014, the timeliness analysis includes cases that 
were transferred to the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum 
Chamber. These cases were effectively closed on the COINS database in 
November 2013. 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
18 
 
Totally without merit (Table 2.4) 
In refusing permission for judicial review, a judge can certify a case to be 
totally without merit (TWM). As part of the Government's reforms to judicial 
review procedures, for cases issued on or after 1st July 2013, a case 
refused permission and certified as totally without merit cannot be renewed 
at the oral renewal hearing stage. A claimant can however appeal against 
this decision, which would be dealt with at the Appeals Court (in criminal 
JRs, there is no appeal route from a refusal of permission if TWM). The 
outcomes of such cases are not recorded in these figures.  
Of the 2,222 cases lodged in the first half of 2016, 999 have so far reached 
the permission or oral renewal stage at the time the data was extracted in 
July 2016.  Of these cases, 20% were found to be TWM. 
Annually, the proportion of cases reaching the permission or oral renewal 
stage that are classed as TWM has seen a slight decline, from 28% in 2013 
to 22% in 2014 and then to 20% in both 2015 and the first half of 2016 (note 
that the 2013 figure involves cases that would now be transferred to the 
Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber). 
 
 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
19 
3: Privacy Injunctions 
This chapter presents statistics on privacy injunctions dealt with at hearings 
at the High Court or Court of Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) in 
London up to January to June 2016.  
In general terms, the injunctions covered by these statistics are those dealt 
with in any civil proceedings in the High Court or Court of Appeal where the 
court considers either:  
 an application for an injunction prohibiting the publication of private or 
confidential information;  
 
 the continuation of such an injunction; or  
 
 an appeal against the grant or refusal of such an injunction.  
 
The injunctions covered by these statistics will be termed “privacy 
injunctions” throughout this report. They include, but do not exclusively 
relate to, super-injunctions. 
Specifically, the statistics relate to applications concerned with data 
protection and rights to respect for private and family life protected by Article 
8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), whether the 
injunction is sought by an individual, a public authority, or a company. When 
an injunction is sought, section 12 of the Human Rights Act is engaged, 
meaning that the injunction might, if granted, affect the exercise of the right 
to freedom of expression contained in Article 10 of the ECHR. 
The ECHR can be found on the following website:  
human-rights-convention.org/ 
 
The statistics do not cover injunctions arising from proceedings dealing with 
family issues, immigration or asylum issues, those which raise issues of 
national security, or most proceedings dealing with intellectual property and 
employment issues. The statistics also relate only to those injunctions dealt 
with at the RCJ in London. They exclude, for example, cases dealt with at 
District Registries of the High Court. In practice, however, the vast majority 
of, if not all applications for such injunctions will be dealt with at the RCJ.  
Data have been collected via statistical returns completed by the hearing 
judge and forwarded to the Ministry of Justice statistics team. The judge in 
the case therefore determines whether an injunction has met the criteria for 
inclusion in these statistics. See the Guide to Civil and Administrative 
Justice Statistics for more details.  
 
 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
20 
Proceedings where applications for privacy injunctions were 
considered  
In January to June 2016, there were two proceedings where the High Court 
in London considered an application for a new interim injunction prohibiting 
the publication of private or confidential information.  No proceedings were 
considered at the High Court on whether to continue or amend an interim 
injunction or to issue a final permanent injunction.  
Two appeals were heard in the Court of Appeal against a grant or refusal 
of an interim or final injunction and one appeal has been heard by the 
Supreme Court. All three of these appeals relate to the same interim 
privacy injunction proceeding, one of the two new cases reported in January 
to June 2016. 
Figures for July to December 2015 published in March 2016 have been 
revised as additional forms were received for this period after publication. 
Figure 3.1 below includes the revised figures for July to December 2015. 
 
 
Figure 3.1: Number of privacy injunction proceedings, by type of 
proceeding, from Aug-Dec 2011 to Jan-Jun 2016 
 
 
New interim privacy injunctions (Table 3.1) 
 Of the two proceedings at the High Court that took place in January 
to June 2016, one case was granted and the other was refused, 
compared with four proceedings that took place during July to 
December 2015, in which three were granted and one was refused.   
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
21 
Continuation of existing interim injunctions (Table 3.2)  
 There were no proceedings during January to June 2016 at the High 
Court in which the court considered whether to continue or vary an 
existing interim injunction from previous periods compared with two 
proceedings that took place during July to December 2015.  
Final privacy injunctions (Table 3.3) 
 There were no proceedings at the High Court in which the court 
considered an application for a final privacy injunction in January to 
June 2016, as was the case during July to December 2015. 
 
Appeals against privacy injunctions  
In addition to the published figures, two appeals relating to one privacy 
injunction case were heard at the Court of Appeal in January to June 2016. 
The first appeal by the appellant against the original refusal of the interim 
privacy injunction, resulted in the interim injunction being granted. The 
second appeal was made by the respondent and led to the interim injunction 
being discharged. However, this decision was immediately appealed to the 
Supreme Court, which upheld the decision for the interim injunction to be 
continued until trial or further order.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
22 
Annex A: Planned upcoming changes to publication 
There are currently no planned changes to the publication.  
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
23 
Annex B: List of Accompanying Tables and CSV 
Accompanying this publication are the following tables: 
Chapter 1 - Civil Courts:  
1.1 County court activity, England and Wales, annually 2000 - 2015, 
quarterly Q1 2009 – Q2 2016 
1.2 Number of claims issued in the county and magistrates' courts, by type 
of claim, England and Wales, annually 2000 - 2015, quarterly Q1 2009 – 
Q2 2016 
1.3 Claims defended and allocations to track, England and Wales, annually 
2000 –  2015, quarterly Q1 2009 – Q2 2016 
1.4 Case progression in the county courts, England and Wales, annually 
2009 -  2015, quarterly Q1 2009 – Q2 2016 
1.5 Number of trials and small claim hearings and the average time to reach 
trial/hearing, England and Wales, annually 2000 - 2015, quarterly Q1 
2009 – Q2 2016 
1.6 Number of defended claims by case type and details of legal 
representation, England and Wales, annually 2013 - 2015, quarterly Q1 
2013 – Q2 2016 
 
Chapter 2 - Judicial Reviews in the Administrative Court: 
2.1 Number of case applications for permission to apply for Judicial Review 
by topic, at the Administrative Court, 2000 – Q2 2016 
2.2 Case Progression: number of Judicial Review cases that reach 
permission stage, oral renewal stage and final hearing by cases lodged, 
at the Administrative Court, 2000 – Q2 2016 
2.3 Timeliness (in days) of Judicial Review cases started at the 
Administrative Court, by staged reached, 2000 – Q2 2016 
2.4 Number of Judicial Reviews at the Administrative Court classed as 
‘Totally Without Merit’ annually, October 2012 – Q2 June 2016 
 
Chapter 3 – Privacy Injunctions 
3.1  Applications at the High Court in London for new interim privacy 
injunctions, August 2011 to June 2016 
3.2  Proceedings dealing with the continuation or variation of interim 
injunctions at the High Court in London, August 2011 to June 2016 
3.3  Final privacy injunctions dealt with at the High Court in London, August 
2011 to June 2016 
 
 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
24 
 Annex C: Timeline of changes to civil procedures 
 Brooke reforms – April 2013, changed the value limits for money 
claims allocated to each track. 
 Jackson reforms – April 2013, changed the process for managing 
multi track claims. 
 Implementation of the tribunals, courts and enforcement act – April 
2014, various changes to the procedures for enforcement of 
judgments. 
 Single county court – April 2014, changed the way in which claims 
are issued. 
 Introduction of secure data transfer (SDT) – November 2014, allowed 
customers issuing bulk claims to do so more easily. 
 Fee enhancements, March 2015 – increased the fee required to 
issue money claims. 
 Debtor petitions (whereby an individual files for bankruptcy), from 6 
April 2015 - moved from the courts to an online system and therefore 
no longer recorded in these statistics.  
 
 
 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
25 
Annex D: Explanatory notes 
 
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as 
National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration 
Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for 
Official Statistics. Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the 
statistics: 
 meet identified user needs; 
 are well explained and readily accessible; 
 are produced according to sound methods, and 
 are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.  
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics, it is a statutory 
requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed. 
Breakdowns of many of the summary figures presented in this bulletin, e.g. 
split by case type or by HMCTS area, are available in the comma separated 
value (csv) files that accompany this publication.  
In the civil section of the publication the terminology ‘hearings or trials’ had 
previously been used to describe civil claims reaching this stage.  We now 
use the term ‘trials’, as this is a more accurate reflection of what the figures 
represent. This does not change the historical or current figures reported.  
 
Data Quality and Revisions 
Revisions to the statistics for the latest quarter may be made when the next 
edition of this bulletin is published. Further revisions may be made when the 
figures are reconciled at the end of the year. If revisions are needed in the 
subsequent year, these will be clearly annotated in the tables. 
The Judicial Review figures are taken from the Administrative Court Office 
COINS database. As the Judicial Review figures are extracted from this live 
database, all figures are refreshed each quarter – as a result, there may be 
minor revisions between the new information presented in the latest bulletin 
and data published previously.  
From September 2015, a small number of cases from the Technology and 
Construction Court and the Mercantile Court (a sub-division of the Chancery 
Division of the Royal Courts of Justice) were logged as cases within the 
County Court Case Management System and therefore were being included 
in the civil county court caseload figures.  This has now been corrected and 
caseload figures for the relevant quarters in 2015 and 2016 in the 
accompanying tables have been revised accordingly. 
Following a review of data processing methodology, the average time 
figures (in Table 1.5) from Q1 2012 onwards have been revised. The 
average timeliness calculation now include claims originating in the 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
26 
Northampton County Court Business Centre, which had been excluded in 
previous publications.  
 
Symbols and conventions 
The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin: 
..    
= Not applicable 
(r) 
= Revised data 
(p) 
= Provisional data 
 
 
 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
27 
Further information 
Earlier editions of this publication can be found at: 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly 
 
For information on Court judgements (including Privacy Injunctions) please 
see:  
www.bailii.org/databases.html#ew 
 
 
Statistics on Tribunals (including Judicial Reviews dealt with by the UTIAC) 
can be found at: 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics 
  
Statistics on the use of interpreters and translation services in courts and 
tribunals can be found at: 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-on-the-use-of-language-
services-in-courts-and-tribunals  
 
Information on Civil County Court Mortgage and Landlord Possession 
Statistics can be found at: 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/mortgage-and-landlord-possession-
statistics 
 
Information on publicly funded legal services is now published by the Legal 
Aid Agency and can be found here:  
www.gov.uk/government/collections/legal-aid-statistics 
 
Information on civil justice in Scotland can be found here 
www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice/civil-judicial-statistics/ 
 
Information on civil justice in Northern Ireland can be found here  
A detailed analysis of county court judgments by region produced by 
Registry Trust Ltd can be found at the link below. This data gives 
aggregated detail on judgments that have been made by the county courts 
and recorded on the judgments register.  
www.data.gov.uk/publisher/registry-trust-limited 
 
The total number of CCJs differs from that published in Civil Court Statistics 
Quarterly, because Registry Trust manually checks the details of each 
judgment. More detail on Registry Trust can be found at:     
www.registry-trust.org.uk/                                           
 
 
 
 

Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly April to June 2016 
 
 
28 
 
 
Contacts 
Press enquiries on the contents of this bulletin should be directed to the 
MoJ or HMCTS press offices: 
Sebastian Walters (MOJ) 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
Email: xxx@xxx.xx 
Camilla Marshall (HMCTS) 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
Email: xxx@xxx.xx  
 
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to the Justice 
Statistics Analytical Services division of the MoJ: 
Tara Rose 
Ministry of Justice 
102 Petty France 
London 
SW1H 9AJ 
Email: xxx@xxx.xx 
General enquiries about the statistics work of the MoJ can be emailed to 
xxx@xxx.xx 
 
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available 
from statisticsauthority.gov.uk/about-the-authority/uk-statistical-system 
 
 
 
 
 
© Crown copyright 
Produced by the Ministry of Justice 
Alternative formats are available on request from 
xxx@xxx.xx