Personal Injuries Litigation
| Date | 01 January 1971 |
| Author | J. C. Harper |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1971.tb02314.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1971 |
70
THE
MODERN
LAW REVIEW
VOL.
XI
perly
are
just not available.
It
is not difficult to see Home Office
pressure as an important factor in the decision to abolish the
threat of imprisonment, but the Government’s cynical retention of
the
powler
to imprison in respect of their own debtors, perhaps thus
indicating their own view
of
the likely ehcacy
of
attachment, is
not likely to lead to its re-introduction even in response to dcmands
if the system continues to prove even more unsatisfactory within
a
short ;period. In the context of the setting up of the Enforcement
Offices there was some merit in the Payne Committee’s
proposals
to
defer research into enforcement problems for two
or
three
years
until
the new system
was
into its stride; but the existing arrangement
makes it a11 the more necessary
for
research
to
be
undertakm
as
soon
as
possible in
a
number of
areas
dealing with the social effects
of enforcement and the efficacy
of
the present system. The argu-
ments.for radical reforms in the present arrangement still bold good
in spite
of
the provisions of this Act.2c
C.
GLASSER.
PERSONAL
INJURIES
LITIGATION
MANY
of
the reforms recommended by the Wirin Committee
on
Persona:l Injuries Litigation are made by the Administration of
Justice Acts 1969 and 1970.’ This note examines the major changes.
County
courts
Part
I
of the 1969 Act makes
a
number of amendments to the
County Cousts Act 1959. Interestingly, the legislation ignores the
Winn Commi,ttee’s doubts and varies its
proposals
in many im-
portant respects.
For
instance, the Committee had not felt qualified to advise
whether section 89 of the 1959 Act should be amended to
allow
local solicitors to be retained
as
advocates in the county courts, since
this would
‘‘
raise vexed questions
”
3;
section
7
of the 1060
Act
makes t,hc necessary amendment.
More
important however, are the jurisdictional changes. One
of
the most valuable sections of the Winn Report discussed the reasons
for, and effects of, increasing the tort jurisdiction of the county
court.* The Committee rccommended
a
limit of
S1,OOO
with
26
The enforcement of judgment-debts sections of the 1970 Act described above
are
to
be repealed and re-enacted
in
a consolidating Attachment
of
Earning8
Bill
now
going through l’arliament.
I
Cmnd.
3G91,
(19G8) discussed
(19G9)
32
M.L.R.
67.
2
See particolarly Cretney (1969)
113
S.J.
951
and 972, and Borrie
and
Pike
(1970)
120
New
L.J.
540.
3
Winn Report, para. 472; The change had been recommended in 1940
by
the
Austen Jones Committee on the County
Courts
(Cmd. 7468). para. 50. See
a!so
Hobin Thompson’fi dissent at p.
182
of
the Winn Report.
4
Winn Report, paras. 416-477.
In
many respects this dificiission has been
.wpcrsedrd
by
the
Report
of the Royal Commission on Assizes and
Quarter
Sessions, Cmnd. 41.53 (1969): fiee (1970)
2
Kingston
L.E.
3.
To continue reading
Request your trial