Civil litigation: What's it for?

Cambridge Law Journal

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 508-520

  Jolowicz, J A ^a  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012496342     PISSN: 00081973     EISSN: 14692139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0008197308000652     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. See CPR 1.1 (1).
2. However, this rule may refer to procedural justice only: cf. CPR 1.1 (2) (a)-(d)
3. Jolowicz, “Substantive and Procedural Justice in Civil Litigation” in B. Fauvarque-Cosson (ed.), De Tous Horizons: Mélanges Xavier Blanc-Jouvan (Paris 2005) 549 (hereafter “Substantive and Procedural Justice”). See note 12, below.
4. Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.
5. In re Norway's Application (Nos 1 and 2) [1990] 1 A.C. 723, 806, per Lord Goff.
6. [1978] A.C. 171, 230.
7. Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I (Cambridge 1968), 2.574.
8. See also, E.J. Couture, “The Nature of Judicial Process” (1950) 25 Tulane Law Review, 1,7, where the civil action is described as “civilization's substitute for vengeance”.
9. [1983] 2 A.C. 394.
10. C.P.R. 1.1 (1), above note 1.
11. C.P.R., 1.1 and footnote to the Third Revision (omitted from later Revisions).
12. Davies v. Eli Lilly and Co. [1987] 1 W.L.R. 428, 431.
13. Emphasis in original. Note the reference to the object of litigation. In Jones v. National Coal Board [1957] 2 Q.B. 55, 63
14. Denning L.J. said that the judge's object is “above all to find out the truth and to do justice according to law.” Cf.his judgment in the Court of Appeal in the Air Canada case [1983] 2 A.C. at p. 411.
15. Re Enoch & Zaretsky, Bock & Co. [1910] 1 K.B. 327.
16. R. Morel, TraitMé ElMémentaire de ProcMédure Civile,2nd ed. (Paris 1949) no. 425.
17. For a rather more extensive account, see Jolowicz, “The Woolf Report and the Adversary System” (1996) 15 C.J.Q., 198, 201–209.
18. Code civil, art 10.
19. See also code de procMédure civile, art.11, al.1.
20. Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid, September 1997, Chapter 1.
21. Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid., para 1.4, emphasis added.
22. “Accelerating the Process of Law”, in The Reform of Civil Procedural Law and Other Essays in Civil Procedure (London 1982), 9.
23. Access to Justice, Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (1996), p.107.
24. R.S.C.Ord. 22.
25. C.P.R., Part 36.
26. C.P.R., Practice Direction Protocols.
27. Practice Statement (Commercial Cases) Alternative Dispute Resolution [1994] 1 W.L.R. 14.
28. Practice Direction (Civil Litigation: Case Management) [1995] 1 W.L.R. 508.
29. Only in special circumstances such as those in which the court's approval of the settlement of a claim by a person under disability is required, are court proceedings possible in the absence of a dispute. For an interesting corollary developed by Lord Mustill in the field of arbitration, see Channel Group v. Balfour Beatty Ltd. [1993] A.C. 334, 355–357.
30. The Honourable J.J.Spigelman A.C.: “Judicial Accountability and Performance Indicators” (2002) 21 C.J.Q. 18, 26.
31. 21 C.J.Q.
32. 21 C.J.Q.
33. [1983] 1 A.C. 768. It is true that a similar case in France would be for the juridiction administrative and would not be regarded as “civil”.
34. For a comparable case, see Air Canada v. Secretary for Trade [1983] 2 A.C. 394 (above, text at note 8), where, in proceedings between most of the major airlines of the world, on the one hand, and the Minister, on the other, concerning landing fees at London Airport (Heathrow) the competing interests of airline passengers and taxpayers were at issue, but were not explicitly mentioned.
35. See Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd. [1977] 1 W.L.R. 478, 486
36. per Lord Denning M.R. and cf. 1 W.L.R. at p.508, per Bridge L.J.
37. Article 2, translated A.K.R. Kiralfy in (1963) 7 Law in Eastern Europe 299.
38. The decision in the Air Canada case was procedurally correct but prevented any attempt at discovery of the truth. See “Substantive and Procedural Justice”, above note 1.
39. Yuill v. Yuill [1945] P. 15, 20, per Lord Greene M.R.
40. Jones v. National Coal Board [1957] 2 Q.B. 55, 63, per Denning L.J.
41. Ex parte Lloyd (1822) Mont. 70, 72n.
42. Wigmore, Treatise on the Anglo- American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Boston, Mass. 1940) para. 1367.