World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Civil Justice Council

The Civil Justice Council is a UK non-departmental public body that advises the Lord Chancellor on civil justice and civil procedure in England and Wales. It was established in 1998 under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.


  • Composition 1
  • Functions 2
  • References 3
  • External links 4


The Council must include:[1]

As of 2007, it is composed of:[2]


The Council's functions are to:[3]

  • Keep the civil justice system under review;
  • Consider how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair and efficient;
  • Advise the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary on the development of the civil justice system;
  • Refer proposals for changes in the civil justice system to the Lord Chancellor and the Civil Procedure Rules Committee; and
  • Make proposals for research.

Subcommittees include:[2]

  • Access to justice committee;
  • Costs committee; (whose Chair is Mr Justice Foskett QC and members include Senior Costs Judge Peter Hurst, Simon Brown QC, John Windsor (Marks and Spencer) Chris Warner (Which?) Murray Heining, Helen Buczynksky (Unison) HHJ Hodge QC, District Judge Marshall Philips, Peter Causton (solicitor representing defendant solicitors), David Marshall (solicitor representing claimant solicitors) David Greene (solicitor representing commercial litigation solicitors) Robert Wright and Adrian Jaggard). The purpose of the costs committee is to advise the Master of The Rolls as to Guideline Hourly rates to be referred to in summary assessment of costs, based upon evidence.
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution committee;
  • Experts committee.

In February 2008, the Ministry of Justice announced a study of the work of the Council to:[4]

  • Review the role and performance of the Civil Justice Council and make recommendations;
  • Evaluate the continuing need for body to perform the role and functions of the Council 1997 Act;
  • Review whether a non-departmental body remains the most appropriate institution;
  • Assess the past effectiveness of the Council; and
  • Consider ways in which the Council could be made more effective.


  1. ^ Civil Procedure Act 1997, s.6(2)
  2. ^ a b
  3. ^ Civil Procedure Act 1997, s.6(3)
  4. ^

External links

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.