A senior judge and a veteran silk give their views on the move of the chancery division, commercial court and TCC to the Rolls Building

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Malcolm Davis White QC says with better facilities and greater proximity, the courts will have a greater flow of communication

In recent years, as in the 1860s and 1870s, the relocation of courts into new buildings has been a hot topic. The Civil Justice Centre in Manchester and the Supreme Court are two examples. The next major relocation is of the chancery division, commercial court and technology and construction court (TCC) into the larger part of the new Rolls Building, off Fetter Lane. This move is planned to take effect from 1 October 2011.

How, if at all, is this development significant? At a very basic level, in terms of the accommodation available, the move will provide a significant fillip to the court processes in the three jurisdictions and the experience of advocates and litigators.

Although the chancery division has been housed conveniently on the Royal Courts of Justice site, primarily in the Thomas More Building, there have undoubtedly been some inconveniences. Conference rooms are few and far between and are usually locked. Public space is minimal. Access is by slow and unreliable lifts with insufficient capacity at peak times. The size of the courts is inadequate for larger cases. At a more basic level, public lavatories are on the ground floor: hardly convenient for those involved in a case on the 11th floor.

The position regarding the commercial court and TCC has been far more serious. These courts and their offices are primarily located in St Dunstan's House. The facilities have long been wholly inadequate. They have also been an embarrassment to lawyers when their clients, both national and international, have been confronted with them. Disputes worth many millions of pounds have been litigated in buildings with facilities that are surpassed by many of the county courts in this country.

The Rolls Building will, it is hoped, rectify much of this. For the first time in a very long time, the three sets of courts will be in a building fit for purpose. In planning the building, in addition to the number of courts and their sizes, obvious matters such as access, light and ventilation have all had to be considered carefully. The number of and different sizes of consultation rooms in the new building is a vast improvement.

Of course, a modern building with 21st century facilities makes the litigation process more pleasant and, hopefully, more efficient. Does it have any greater significance? The success of all three courts in attracting and dealing with national and international work may be said to result from the perceived benefits of English law (where there is a choice of law to be adopted), the quality and dispatch of business by the judges and the court organisation backing up the judicial process.

The amount and quality of work attracted, it might be argued, has not been too seriously affected by any inadequacy in the facilities of the current buildings. There is, however, a very real opportunity afforded by bringing together the three court groupings for real advantages beyond those flowing simply from the new building. No new court is being created; however, there is likely to be a great benefit from the ease of communication which will flow from the move.

Already, judges from one division have been cross-ticketed to hear cases in other divisions. Where exercised appropriately, this can lead to greater efficiency and a better judiciary. There have been significant developments in case management techniques, with lessons learned in one division being put to good use in the others. There have been innovative and practical developments such as a chancery judge and a commercial court judge sitting together to give directions on various pieces of litigation proceeding in the two courts.

These developments have occurred with the courts in their current physical locations but are likely to be made easier and to accelerate once the courts and the administration are on one site.

Overall, greater efficiency in the dispatch of court business is likely to take place. This appears to have been the experience in the regions, where specialist chancery, mercantile and TCC judges sit in various centres.

There is every reason to hope and anticipate that similar benefits will accrue in London after October 2011. The advantages flowing from the courts being on one site was a key aspect of the 1860 proposals for what became the Royal Courts of Justice and, broadly, they are the same in the 2010s.

Malcolm Davis White QC is chair of the Chancery Bar Association.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Bringing the judicial bodies together will help do away with unnecessary differences while highlighting useful ones. Mr Justice Briggs gives his view from the bench

Later this year I will, with my judicial colleagues from the chancery division, the commercial court and the technology and construction court (TCC), be moving together with all our support and administrative staff to the new purpose-built court complex in Fetter Lane known as the Rolls Building.

When it opens for business in October 2011, it will for the first time in many years bring under one roof the whole of the High Court's specialist judicial expertise in London for the determination of high-value business and property disputes. This project has been long in gestation, and represents a major commitment by Government, sustained during changes of party ascendancy, to the provision and support of modern and efficient facilities for civil justice in the business and property sphere. It underpins both the UK, as an excellent place in which to invest and to do business, and English law, as the framework of choice for business dispute resolution internationally.

There is no doubt that some of us will look back a little wistfully from our new state-of-the-art building to the glorious architecture of our old habitat and may lament the loss our own court, by comparison with the new arrangement whereby courts are allocated to suit the size of the litigants' teams rather than to the judge's convenience. But there can, I think, be no doubt that the new building will in every respect better serve the litigation community.

One of the inconvenient curiosities of the present arrangement is that business and property litigation is divided upon essentially historic lines between three different court groups spread across two divisions, two separate buildings and, even within the main Royal Courts of Justice site, widely dispersed around something of a labyrinth. Despite this, very large parts of the work are of types that can be litigated in two or even all three of those groups, according to party (usually claimant) choice.

Nonetheless the registries, listing and filing offices and other administrative departments are all in different places, separated both from each other and sometimes even from the courts they serve.

These divisions are matched by a similar divisiveness in procedures, practices and even ethos. Each court group has its own treasured way of doing things, its own guides, administrative structures and sometimes even its own jargon. Those responsible for these matters, from judges downward, spend little time trying to learn from each others' practices. To some extent, these differences are the beneficial response to real differences in the nature of the different groups' work and court user communities, and rightly valued for that reason. It is no part of the Rolls Building project to do away with them.

Nonetheless, a major benefit of the move putting the three disparate groups under one roof will be to create a situation where, in a kind of co-habitation rather than forced marriage, those differences can be re-appraised by colleagues working side by side in a collegiate environment, discussing with and learning from each other, so that unnecessary differences are pruned away, leaving those which are beneficial to flourish.

Those who use the High Court in London for business and property litigation will at the same time find in the Rolls Building a compact, modern, one-stop shop with, for example, listing offices and registries side by side, masters and registrars in sensible proximity and courts selected for cases to suit the numbers likely to attend.

The sheer scale of the increased facility is remarkable. There will be 31 courtrooms, not including hearing rooms for masters and registrars, and no less than 55 conference rooms, a much better ratio than in the Royal Courts of Justice's main site, let alone at St Dunstan's. It will be fully wired for computer use in every court. In the meantime, the move coincides with the start of electronic filing in all three court groups. Three of the courts will be 'super courts', replacing the current unsatisfactory ad hoc arrangements.

The Rolls Building will strengthen the already substantial international reputation and workload of the commercial court, chancery division and TCC.

There is, quite simply, no modern specialist centre for business and property litigation of the same size anywhere else in the world. The City has been a firm supporter of this project