Adversarial and inquisitorial models of civil procedure

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 281-295

  Jolowicz, ja ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013229555     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/52.2.281     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Lenoan, La procédure devant le Conseil d'Etat (1954), 109.
2. P& M, II 574.
3. See also D v NSPCC [1978] AC 171, 230, per Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
4. ‘The Nature of Judicial Process’ (1950) 25 Tulane Law Review, 1, 7.
5. Nouveau code de procédure civile, Art 16. Unless otherwise stated, future references to articles are to articles of this code.
6. See IH Jacob, The Fabric of English Civil Justice (London: Stevens & Sons, 1987), 19. The admission of documentary material in evidence is now more widespread than previously, but if a jury is engaged, orality is essential.
7. ‘Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice’ (1906) 40 Am LR 729, 738–9.
8. Note Lord Denning's remark in Burmah Oil Co v Bank of England [1979] 1 WLR 473, 484, when he said ‘In litigation as in war. If one side makes a mistake, the other can take advantage of it. No holds are barred.’
9. ‘Facultades y deberes del juez en el moderno proceso civil’, in Revista Iberoamericana de Derecho Procesal (1968), 393, 395–6.
10. J.H. Wigmore, Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 3rd edn (Boston: Little Brown, 1940), para 1367.
11. CPRr 1.1 and footnote to the Third Revision.
12. [1983] 2 AC 394.
13. [1983] 2 AC, at 410, as quoted by Lord Denning.
14. AC, at 411.
15. AC, at 438. Emphasis added.
16. Interim Report, 7.
17. Interim Report, 19
18. Final Report, 14.
19. Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid (1997), 9.
20. The Honourable JJ Spigelman AC ‘Judicial Accountability and Performance Indicators’ (2002) 21 CJQ 18, 26.
21. Davis v Eli Lilly and Co [1987] 1 WLR 428, 431.
22. Final Report, 29.
23. CPR, r 24.
24. CPR, r 32.1.
25. 12 octobre 1070, D. 1979, 606 Note Bénabent
26. JCP 1980 II, 19288, concl Franc, Note Boré
27. Normand, 1980 Rev trim dr civ, 145.
28. Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd [1977] 478.
29. Hoechon Products Ltd v Cargill Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 404.
30. ‘The Adversarial Principle: Fairness and Efficiency’, in A Zuckerman and R Cranston, Reform of Civil Procedure (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 169.
31. See JA Jolowicz, ‘The Woolf Report and the Adversary Process’ (1996) 15 CJQ 198.
32. R. Morel, Traité Elementaire de Procédure civile, 2nd edn (Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1949), no 425.
33. Solus et Perrot, Droit judiciaire privé, III Procédure de première instance (1991) (hereafter ‘Solus et Perrot), no 344.
34. H Motulsky, ‘Le rôle respectif du juge dans l'allégation de faits’, in H Motulsky, Ecrits (Paris: Dulloz, 1973), 33.
35. Solus et Perrot, no 731.
36. CPR, Part 38.
37. ‘Réflexions et propositions sur la procédure civile.’ For a relatively early comment, see A Garapon, ‘Vers une nouvelle économie politique de la justice?’, D 1997, Chron 69.
38. S. Guinchard, ‘ L'ambition d'une justice civile rénovée’, D 1999, Chron 65, no 1.
39. What follows owes much to Guinchard, Chron, n 49.
40. Guinchard Chron, n 49, no 21. It may be, however, that these changes will give greater weight than heretofore to the legal submissions of the parties.
41. For criticism, see JJ Bourdillat, ‘La réforme des conclusions récapitula-tives ou la quête du succès improbable’ D 2000 Chron 427.
42. For the position when such conclusions récapitulatives were merely voluntary. See Solus et Perrot, Droit judiciaire privé, III (1991), no 68. The judge's task in drawing up judgments is eased by allowing performance of his duty to set out the parties' pretensions and arguments by a simple reference to their conclusions
43. Modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits (‘MARC’).
44. Code de procédure civile (1806), Art 48.
45. Law of 9 fév. 1949.
46. ‘Il entre dans la mission du juge de concilier les parties’, Art 21.
47. Figures taken from Guinchard, Chron, n 49, no 1. Despite increased productivity by the judges, the number of cases awaiting disposal multiplied by 3.5 in 20 years.