Civil Justice Council’s report on Civil Enforcement

To commence civil proceedings in England and Wales, there are numerous steps that must be taken within a short time frame for a claim to proceed to court or judgment. The process begins with a claim form being issued by the claimant and served on the defendant, followed by the defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Defence (if defended) and Counterclaim (if applicable). But what happens when a defendant in civil proceedings fails to submit these documents by the set deadline?

In this instance, the claimant is then entitled to apply for a default judgment against the defendant. If documents are submitted in time, and the matter progresses to a hearing, a judgment will be reached following the hearing. If a judgment debtor (the person against whom a court has issued a judgment for the payment of a debt), refuses to pay the outstanding sum or misses a scheduled payment, enforcement proceedings can be brought against them.

In January 2025, the Civil Justic Council (CJC) approved the formation of a working enforcement group. The aim of the group was to understand how the civil court process is currently working and consider ways in which this can be improved to make justice more accessible, effective, and efficient. Sir Geoffery Vos, Master of the Rolls, recognised that these processes require modernisation and ‘significant improvement’ in order to tackle the current obstacles faced by justice-seekers, such as over-complex procedures.

We have recently seen how justice is being made more accessible to the public through the decrease in numerous court fees in April of this year.

The process began with the Enforcement Working Group holding a 12-week public consultation and three public webinars. The call for evidence allowed the public to voice their opinion on the current court processes and included questions involving the following topics:

• Their experience and awareness of enforcement.
• The information supplied about potential judgment debtors.
• Support provided for debtors.
• Proposed improvements.
• General information, additional comments or current difficulties.

The results from the call for evidence generally showed that responders believed that the current process is too complex and needs to become more efficient, whilst still maintaining protection for defendants. The majority of issues included:

• Court delays, archaic systems and processes, and outdated forms.
• Lack of sufficient resources (particularly regarding bailiffs in the County Court).
• Lack of communication from the court regarding the progress of cases.
• Lack of up-to-date data for creditors.
• Lack of detail regarding the debtor’s financial circumstances.
• Lack of engagement from debtors.

The Working Group found that a majority of these issues can be improved by an increase in the use of mediation, particularly for smaller claims, as well as an increase in meaningful and effective discussion between parties. It was found that people experiencing financial difficulty were afraid to speak to their creditors because they were worried that it could negatively affect their credit score. Creditors are encouraged to welcome these conversations and prompt debtors to seek help. By providing up-to-date and relevant information, it decreases the risk of misunderstanding and distrust between parties, which assists with finding an agreement.

The Working Group recommended that the Warrant of Control or Judgement Support Centres should be repurposed to provide support for debtors through debt support centres. They also suggested the creation of a single, unified court for the enforcement of judgments.

It was recommended for HMCTS to gather further information on the most commonly used enforcement methods, the time taken to process these applications, orders made in response to these applications, the sums involved and whether the orders are being satisfied. This will allow further monitoring of the processes involved and ultimately encourage reform in these areas.

A few of the recommendations to be considered by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) included a reduction in the fee to set aside a County Court Judgement (CCJ), the advice for enforcing judgments to be reviewed and for Part 4 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TECA) to be implemented (this covers the enforcement of judgments and orders).

They recommended that the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) amend the phrasing of various CPR sections such as CPR 6.9 and CPR 12.3 as well as amendments to the N1 form and redrafts of numerous response forms. The review of court forms to ensure that language is clear for all court users, aiding in the rise of accessibility.

With the consideration and implementation of these recommendations, we hope to see a rise in accessibility to justice, improved support for debtors and creditors and increased efficiency within the court system, hopefully decreasing the long delays which we face today.

For information or advice on civil disputes or issues relating to this article, our Litigation and Dispute Resolution team are here to help. Contact them today to book your free 30-minute consultation with one of our experts.

Tel:       01245 893400
Email:  info@backhouse-solicitors.co.uk
Visit:    17 Duke Street, Chelmsford, CM1 1JU
Or send us a message through the Contact Us page on this website.