With the Chairman's permission I will pick up on the more salient issues, particularly some of the issues we were asked to address by the committee. We are happy to engage in ongoing dialogue with the committee to assist it in whatever way we can.
I will repeat that the effectiveness of the practice and procedures of personal injury litigation has been an ongoing matter of public concern and the programme for Government contained a number of proposals for change with particular emphasis on the greater expedition, at lower cost, in the disposal of civil litigation. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act has now been enacted, the Civil Liability and Courts Bill has just been published and the committee on court practice and procedure will shortly be reporting to the Minister at his request examining procedures where personal injury litigation is concerned.
The Courts Service was established to manage the courts and support the Judiciary in the administration of justice. Since our establishment, we have been engaged in major programme of reform and modernisation. Systems and technologies have been and continue to be put in place to facilitate the more efficient and effective disposal of court business. Major information technology systems have been implemented across most areas at this stage and more information in terms of quality and quantity is available than has been the case heretofore. Computers are now in use in a number of courts and video links are used quite regularly.
Just over a week ago, the first commercial case - which is a fairly new regime and may have relevance to other areas in due course - was dealt with by the new commercial court which has a whole new set of rules and a stringent case management system supported by technology including video conferencing, the facility to take evidence from abroad and the facility to display and file documents electronically.
The implementation of the new systems has necessitated on our part a huge review of procedures, processes and rules and the harmonisation, simplification and modernisation of procedures in the various jurisdictions, particularly in regard to personal injuries which is by far the biggest volume of civil litigation in terms of numbers at present. To that end, we have established a particular unit to drive forward that modernisation of rules and procedures and so on.
We are conscious there are a number of constituencies with conflicting views on the effectiveness of the personal injury litigation system and its conflicting requirements. Broadly speaking, plaintiffs and their representative complain of the length of time it takes to get cases to a conclusion and defendants, including insurance companies, are concerned about the cost of litigation. Those are the two biggest issues which come before us.
We have attached a great deal of statistics to the submission. Feedback to us suggests that there is major dissatisfaction with the hearing of personal injury cases relating to three main areas, namely, the time between the claimants instructing their solicitor and the case being listed for hearing, lack of certainty that a case will go ahead on the particular day it is scheduled for and the costs. Members will note from the statistics that in respect of cases set down for trial - in other words, when the court office is notified that the case is ready to go on - for example, in the High Court, the waiting time is, on average, ten days to two weeks. When the High Court is on circuit in the provinces, it is anything between three to six months and in one or two areas it is somewhat longer.
By and large, there is no waiting time before the date the office is told to list the case. That is the first time the offices and the courts get control of the case because, until then, the case is progressed at the speed determined by the parties. In the commercial court, that regime is different because of the complexity of those cases and the scale and size of them. There will be an active case management and the judge will actively meet with the parties at an early stage and agree time scales and so on. That will be monitored to see what wider application that approach might have in other areas of business.
The analysis of the statistics on the year from 2001 to 2002 and the first nine months of 2003 show that, by and large, 50% of cases are set down for trial within one year of their being initiated. The delays are occurring in the other 50% - they are not brought to the stage at which they are ready to set down for trial.
We went back to 1998 and examined the total number of summonses issued by the High Court. Members will note that about half of them never came back into the system. The view of those who are familiar with the lists is that they will not come back because they have either been settled or dropped.
I have set out further analysis in the report which I will not dwell on. I have already mentioned the waiting time in the High Court. The waiting time in the Circuit Court is also quite short - it is generally the next sitting. By "waiting time", we mean the date we get control of the case, which is the date the office is told the parties are ready to go and they look for a hearing date. As far as the parties are concerned, the waiting time begins when the case is initiated, but that is not what we define as "waiting period". The only time the court and court officers get control is when the parties say they are ready to go. Overall, there is little waiting time in any of the courts. The volume of personal injuries claims in the District Court is negligible because the jurisdiction is so low.
Our retrospective statistics for the Circuit Court are not as comprehensive as for the High Court because we had a computerised system in the High Court much earlier. However, we took a sample of typical counties and carried out an analysis of a number of counties and we had information for Dublin, which is obviously the biggest in the civil court. The statistics on the volume of cases and analysis is representative of the country as a whole.
Some 20% of cases go forward for full hearing in the Circuit Court, whereas in the High Court only 5% of cases go forward. The vast majority of cases are settled, usually on the steps on the morning of the court. Whatever new arrangements are introduced and whatever improvements we or others can make, the incentive to settle earlier should become greater. At the moment, as far as the offices are concerned, the same amount of work is done at that stage whether the cases go to full hearing.
In regard to the uncertainty about hearing dates, by and large, most cases get certainty. However, because so many cases settle, the system is predicated on that and the number of cases listed per day assumes a settlement rate in the order of whatever the norm is. It just takes an exception to the norm and the list and days get thrown and people are left waiting with expert witnesses and so on. If there are expert witnesses, every effort is made to have fixed days for hearing so that they are guaranteed a hearing date. There has been an increasing tendency to take evidence by video link and video conferencing in some personal injury cases, particularly in respect of witnesses from abroad.
I have just said that an important issue is culture change. People need to see judicial time as a resource and see that cases are settled. In Scotland people are required to pay a fee for the use of court time. There may or may not be merit in something like that. The prompt exchange of expert reports, the use of video links and so on are also important. Some of those things are happening.
We were asked to address the issue of the Courts and Court Officers Act and the increase in civil jurisdiction. We certainly welcome that change. The presidents of the courts would also welcome the change. For example, for personal injury cases in the District Court there is a fixed scale of costs. In the Circuit Court, costs are typically 50% of costs in the High Court. That is based on an examination of relative costs which we did for the chairperson of the PIAB.
The introduction of the increased jurisdictions——