LAW
Is it necessary to maintain a costly and slow justice system in order to avoid a flood of irrelevant cases?
No. Irrelevant cases could be reduced by tacking additional costs or penalties to failing plaintiffs or reducing the benefits achieved by case success, but these too would present its own set of problems.
The converse is actually true.
Well, all cases are "relevant" to their parties. That said, cost and slowness are not options that the system deliberately takes: they are the result of many factors, including over-litigation. One proposal that has been made to deal with this is to adopt some sort of "loser pays" (or "English rule") system. "Irrelevant" cases would not be filed if a higher percentage of their costs were born by those who file them (or their attorneys). I don't expect to be invited to trial lawyer conventions for saying so, but I'm certainly not alone in this!
A false dichotomy. Irrelevant cases should be dealt with by appropriate measures, including costs orders. Any reasonable measure to speed up litigation and lower its cost is good.
This question is illogical. The speed of the justice system has nothing to do with the relevancy of any particular case or all cases.
yes, and no.
yes, flood of relevant cases may be avoided
no, it disrupts the development of law
Yes.
How does one define "irrelevant"? If legal advice has been provided to a litigant, while the case might be weak it is not (hopefully) irrelevant. The question would be posed better if it referred to weak cases.
In a perfect world, where obviously "irrelevant" cases are identified, they should be heavily penalised in costs. In that way, dissuading litigants of such cases will in turn lead to a speeding up of the system, as there will be fewer cases for courts to focus on.
No. There should be other means to ensure that irrelevant cases are not brought before the courts.
no. its just overburdened. The criminal dockets flood the courthouse with drug cases.
Costs - yes but I am not sure whether the slow justice system would have/has any effect.
NO. In fact the opposite is true. Justice is most often served swiftly. There are many cases that require long drawn out investigation of all the facts, but the majority of cases should swiftly proceed through the system and provide a result. The only reason that cases take a long time is due to attorneys and court dockets. Priority is not given to easy cases. There are many jurisdictions that provide alternative dispute resolutions measures, but those are usually not binding and seem to often draw out the cases, though they do promote a majority of settlements.
Each case has to be judged on its own merits. |
| 1 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>
| |
|
99688 interviews created
INVITE YOUR FRIENDS