Governance
Chairman’s column
government. There has been plenty of talk about cuts that are needed in the public sector in order to balance the budget. One area where we must all be very cautious and make sure we lobby hard with our MPs and contacts in the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), is to ensure that the Court Service does not suffer a reduction in headcount when there are still major needs for improvements and efficiencies. I am not saying that the courts are
W
necessarily managed well. I am sure they could always improve. However, the system operating in England and Wales is far more efficient than that operated in most of Europe. The UK is a major dispute resolution centre for the whole world, earning a huge amount for the UK economy from foreign clients. Many contracts specify English law and jurisdiction or possibly arbitration in the UK. Many countries and companies see it as an honest and efficient place in which to resolve any disputes. Other countries still seem to require brown envelopes changing hands with court officials and judges to get anything done. Fortunately we have never had that problem in the UK. In looking at the MoJ, and
particularly the way in which the courts administer debt recovery matters, it is essential not only for the courts to look at how better the system can operate, but also whether any money can be saved without necessarily cutting or delaying the service. The classic example is that
E are all waiting with baited breath for the mini budget from the new coalition
being lobbied for by the High Court Enforcement Officers for them to be able to enforce all judgments, and for the County Court bailiffs to be abolished. That is a longstanding overdue reform that could not only save money but improve efficiency overnight. Conversely, the lack of full time
district judges and the inability of some courts to allocate the same judge to one matter throughout, has led to ridiculous situations where one judge insists the matter will not be adjourned again in one order from the court, while a subsequent different and often deputy district judge takes the opposite view. It is usually the rule that bankruptcies will not get repeatedly adjourned but we have had occasions where some sob stories have worked in certain courts and yet not in others. Robust district judges are to be welcomed. Perhaps weeding out a few who
have been inconsistent and looking at those situations where the court service receives complaints, is one which needs to be looked at very carefully. I am all in favour of keeping good, efficient and hardworking district judges. It is illogical to have a system that allows a robust approach at one court, and a sympathetic approach with no relation to reason in another. Improving standards is a much- needed efficiency which should not necessarily take any further expenditure, and may even save money.
One other area which we have come across is where judges sometimes say they would like a case specifically referred to them, and others say they
Other countries still seem to require brown envelopes changing hands with court officials and judges to get anything done...
4 July 2010 www.
icm.org.uk
President Robert Turner
Chief Executive Philip King FICM CdipAF MBA
by Larry Coltman
Executive Board David Ancliffe FICM Glen Bullivant FICM Larry Coltman FICM – Chair Brenda Linger FICM Am/Ex Cert Ed Charlie Robertson FICM MABI – Vice Chair
Claire Sandbrook FICM – Treasurer Advisory Council David Ancliffe FICM Anthony Bown FICM FInstLEx Glen Bullivant FICM Larry Coltman FICM – Chair Ruth Dixon FICM David Harrison FICM Carolyn Hobbs MICM Stuart Hopewell FICM Mike Howson FICM JP Brian Lewis FICM Brenda Linger FICM Am/Ex Cert Ed Stephen McCrory MICM Lynne Mills FICM Carole Morgan FICM Charlie Robertson FICM MABI – Vice Chair Claire Sandbrook FICM – Treasurer Richard Seadon FICM Stephen Skipwith MICM(Grad) MIIM MBA
definitely do not. It is often those cases where we come up against debtor litigants in person who are known as the proverbial ‘pain’. Inevitably those individuals can waste hours of the courts’ time and whilst the courts must ensure justice is seen to be done, it seems unhelpful to me for one judge who has had experience of a difficult litigant in person to endorse a court file with the comment ‘please do not list before me again’. It seems unreasonable to allow a district judge to do this when he has some experience of how to deal with the individual rather than passing the buck. I know many lawyers complain
regularly to their local courts about such issues, but it is important for all of us to support them as the service is at best inconsistent. Until we have consistency in the system that is fair, pragmatic and efficient, we will all be frustrated with cases that never go away. This all adds to the costs for you, as credit managers and your company, and this is one saving I am sure you would all like to see achieved in the not too distant future.
Empowering the credit profession
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48