Increase debts court limits to make system fairer

Wednesday 30 July 2014

The £10,000 cap on the claims in the Petty Debts Court severely restricts the options available to creditors and should be raised, according to respondents to the ongoing Access to Justice Review.

The court, which sits every Wednesday morning, can only handle claims worth up to £10,000, but for those seeking repayment of larger debts the huge legal costs of progressing a civil action in the Royal Court are prohibitive.

Both the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Jersey Chamber of Commerce have called for the £10,000 limit to be reviewed, with one of the respondents, David Rothband, having proposed a new limit for a single claim of £50,000.

Mr Rothband, a construction professional with over 30 years’ experience, says that disputes or claims totaling tens of thousands of pounds are not uncommon in the construction industry, but if they exceed the £10,000 claim limit, the costs of preparing a case for a Royal Court hearing are “disproportionate”.

He is calling for a more simple process whereby plaintiffs can issue proceedings in a standard format to make it cheaper and easier to resolve matters, with some form of mandatory mediation or dispute resolution included as part of the process.

“My suggestion is for some form of tribunal to be developed within clear guidelines where both parties present their case complete with written and oral evidence to back this up, as appropriate,” says Mr Rothband.

“The issues which regularly arise within the construction industry can be streamlined and made user friendly without the need for a longwinded and over-litigious process.”

His views are supported by Malcolm Ferey, chief executive of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, who agrees that the £10,000 cap should be removed.

“The cap on jurisdiction of £10,000 was set some 14 years ago and we believe it is time to review this cap with a view to increasing it,” said Mr Ferey.

He is also keen to promote the benefits of community mediation, which he says is an effective solution provided by the CAB but is a facility which remains “under-used”.

However, in his submission to the Review’s advisory panel, the current Batonnier David Cadin has questioned whether the growth of alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, is indicative of a failure to provide access to justice although he also suggests its use should be encouraged, along with alternatives such as early expert determination and evaluative mediation.

And he too has suggested that consideration be given to changing the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts and providing expedited procedural rules for certain disputes in the Royal Court.