A Decade of Reform: From Consultation to Action

In April 2016, I walked into Inner Temple for a stakeholder meeting that would shape the next decade of my professional life. Sir Michael Briggs, then Lord Justice Briggs, had convened a working session to discuss the future of civil courts in England and Wales, and I was there in my capacity as Chairman of the Civil Court Users Association (CCUA). Alongside District Judge Christopher Lethem and a room of practitioners, academics, and policymakers, we spent hours debating what was wrong with the system and what needed to change.

Ten years on, I find myself reflecting on what was said in that room, and measuring it against what we have actually built.

The State of Play in 2016

At the time of the Briggs Interim Review, the statistics were striking. Approximately 95 per cent of money claims filed through the County Court went undefended. The system was processing vast volumes of straightforward, often contractual, debts, yet it required the same documentation and procedural steps whether or not a defence was ever raised. Sir Michael’s review made a persuasive case that contractual documentation should only be required if and when a defence was actually filed. The process, as it stood, was front-loaded with bureaucracy that served nobody.

Enforcement was another major theme. Too many hearings were being convened with little practical outcome. Debtors who chose not to cooperate faced few meaningful consequences. Court closures were accelerating, with the promise that digitisation would compensate for reduced physical access. The discussion touched on sanctions for non-cooperative parties and the idea that enforcement should be more than a theoretical right; it should be a practical reality.

The Proposals That Mattered

Several ideas discussed at that meeting have stayed with me because they cut to the heart of systemic failure.

The Online Court. Sir Michael’s review proposed a new online dispute resolution process for lower-value claims. One participant suggested it should be called the “Debtor’s Court,” a name that captured the frustration many creditors felt about a system that seemed weighted against recovery. While the name did not stick, the underlying principle, that technology should make the process faster, cheaper, and more accessible, was widely endorsed.

Pre-Action Protocols. The Pre-Action Protocol on Debt Claims (PAP) had come into effect the previous year, and the reaction in the room was overwhelmingly critical. Practitioners described the protocol as arduous and disproportionate, particularly for commercial debts where the relationship between the parties was straightforward. There was a strong consensus that PAP should be paused or reformed until the broader court modernisation programme was in place.

Separating business from consumer debt. Several participants argued that commercial debt recovery should be treated differently from consumer debt. The regulatory and procedural framework was being shaped primarily by concerns about vulnerable consumers (legitimate concerns, certainly), but the effect was to impose friction on business-to-business disputes where both parties were commercially sophisticated.

Specialist enforcement. The discussion touched on the need for specialist judges and a specialist enforcement regime. High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs) reported that changes to possession claim rules had made the transfer-up process slower and more cumbersome. Commercial clients, meanwhile, were telling us they would gladly pay higher court fees in exchange for faster, more effective High Court enforcement.

Digitisation as prevention. One point that resonated strongly was the volume of court delays caused by incorrectly completed paper forms. Digital systems, it was argued, could prevent errors at the point of submission rather than catching them weeks later. For litigants in person, those navigating the system without legal representation, guided online forms could be transformative.

What I Volunteered

At the conclusion of that meeting, I made a commitment on behalf of the CCUA. I volunteered our members to assist with the construction and testing of the new court system. It was not a casual offer. I believed then, as I believe now, that the people who use the system every day are best placed to help design a better one.

That commitment set something in motion that I could not have fully anticipated at the time.

What We Have Built

When I look at what RCU delivers today, I see the direct lineage of those 2016 discussions.

The call for digitisation has become RCU’s digital portal and bespoke IT network: a platform that allows creditors and legal professionals to manage the entire enforcement journey online, from CCJ through to Writ of Control and beyond. No more paper forms completed incorrectly. No more delays caused by administrative backlogs.

The call for enforcement reform has become RCU’s clearing house model: a national service that facilitates the transfer of County Court Judgments to the High Court for enforcement, with fair allocation across a panel of HCEOs. The system is designed to be transparent, efficient, and scalable.

The criticism of excessive pre-action protocols has informed RCU’s streamlined process. We have built a service that removes unnecessary procedural friction while maintaining full compliance with legal requirements. The focus is on getting cases through the system, not on generating paperwork for its own sake.

The need for specialist enforcement has led to RCU’s national HCEO Partner Panel: a network of authorised enforcement businesses operating under consistent standards, with fair case allocation and no preferential treatment.

What Remains

I would be dishonest if I suggested the job is done. It is not.

The court system in England and Wales is still evolving. Digitisation has progressed, but unevenly. The HMCTS reform programme has delivered improvements in some areas while leaving others largely untouched. The enforcement landscape remains fragmented, with inconsistent practices and limited accountability in certain parts of the sector.

There is growing discussion about statutory regulation of enforcement agents, a development I welcome. The current system of judicial certification works well when properly administered, but the sector would benefit from a more formalised regulatory framework that ensures consistent standards across all practitioners.

The separation of commercial and consumer debt recovery remains incomplete. Policymakers are still grappling with how to protect vulnerable consumers without imposing disproportionate burdens on legitimate commercial recovery.

Ten Years On

I have spent two decades in private practice, thirteen years in High Court Enforcement, and over a decade on the CCUA Board, five of those years as Chairman. I have sat on CICM committees, university advisory boards, and industry working groups. Through all of that, the thread has been consistent: the system can be better, and the people who use it should be the ones to improve it.

RCU is not the end of that story. It is a chapter, perhaps the most significant one so far, in a longer journey toward a debt recovery system that works fairly, efficiently, and transparently for everyone involved.

When I walked into Inner Temple in 2016, I was there to advocate for change. Ten years later, I am building it.

A Decade of Reform: From Consultation to Action