WITH his candid admission yesterday that there was “nothing which could usefully be done” to halt the liquidators’ case against the Bank of England, Mr Justice Tomlinson called into question the effectiveness of the Woolf reforms, lawyers said last night.

The Civil Procedure Rules were introduced in 1999 in a bid to promote cheap and speedy justice.

However, the legal community has been stunned recently by the huge costs and length of time devoted to two cases that collapsed in spectacular fashion.

Last September Equitable Life withdrew its claim against Ernst & Young after spending years in litigation. This only justified the ruling handed down by the first trial judge, who had declared that the insurer had no real prospect of success.

Separately, the trial for the liquidators’ claim lasted nearly two years, but had been preceded by several pre-trial hearings conducted in 2002 and 2003. It had taken 11 years to come to court, with the liquidators forced to seek sanction from the House of Lords for their claim.

They were given the go-ahead for a full trial, but two dissenting law lords ruled that the case should be thrown out and argued in favour of a summary judgment.

When the trial began, lawyers on both sides vied with each other to set records with their opening arguments. The liquidator’s main barrister, Gordon Pollock, QC, spoke for 86 days, to be surpassed by Nicholas Stadlen, QC, acting for the Bank. Mr Stadlen took 119 days.

William O’Brian, a law lecturer at Warwick University, called for the review of procedures allowing summary judgments. Mr O’Brian said: “More attention has to be given when there is seemingly weak case that is factually complicated.”

Mr Justice Tomlinson’s remarks have come only a month after Lord Woolf criticised the length of cases at the High Court and said that the judiciary had failed to stop cases spiralling out of control.

Stephen Hockman, QC, chair of the Bar Council, said that the trial was a good example for lawyers and the judiciary to see if case management could be improved.

Edward Sparrow, a litigation partner at Ashurst, said that the ruling showed that litigation in England was expensive because the courts were failing actively to manage cases.

Mr Sparrow said: “This judgment confirms the concern of many litigators that the courts are not embracing that role.”

Watching brief - quotes that sum up the courtroom clash

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive