民事诉讼法英文论文沃尔夫遭遇科克瑞尔.pdf

The Liverpool Law ReviewVol. XIX(I) [1997] WOOLF MEETS COCKEREL?* David White and Patrick Cassan** Introduction This article sets out to compare certain key aspects of the developments in the legal procedures used in France and England, insofar as they are designed to combat the delay and expense in civil proceedings which beset the delivery of justice in every sophisticated legal system. The discussion is on the basis (hopefully, not nafvely adopted) that the Woolfreforms will be implemented in full. Background-- England Enthusiasts for the English system of civil litigation point to the fact that the system has evolved step by step over many decades to provide the maximum likelihood of the court being able to arrive at the correct judgment. The development of these procedures has not held as an objective the containment of the expense of the litigation to the parties (or, where the parties are in receipt of legal aid, the taxpayer). The system has been adversarial, with the speed of the litigation remaining in the hands of the litigants. A major step towards containment of the delay and expense has been the introduction, in 1981, of the small claims arbitration system leading to a hearing date within a matter of weeks of issue of proceedings; and, in 1989, of rules striking out automa- tically the majority of claims where the plaintiff has not requested the court to arrange a trial date within a given period of battle being joined. Lord Woolfs report Access to Justice 1 adopts as its starting point the premise that unacceptable delays in civil litigation will not be eliminated unless a system of case management is adopted by the judiciary, and the * The a