Online UK Courts Modelled On EBay To Settle Legal Disputes

First time accepted submitter infolation writes The UK justice system should receive a radical overhaul for the digital age with the creation of an online court to expand access to justice and resolve claims of up to £25,000, the official body that oversees civil courts has recommended. The report says existing services — such as eBay's disagreement negotiation procedure and Cybersettle's blind-bidding operations — provide prototypes worth studying. Only the judge need be legally qualified. If necessary, telephone hearings could be built into the last stage. Rulings by the online judge would be as enforceable as any courtroom judgment.

Comments

Wait, model it after Ebay dispute resolution?

[Ecuador]

The notoriously bad and unfair Ebay dispute resolution? I hope they don't just mean "the buyer always wins" (and I am talking as an ebay buyer here - it has affected me too since most sellers have pulled out and I can't find the rare things I could in the past).

That said, a simple online system where you can argue small cases without spending money for lawyers or even traveling to court could be a great thing IF it is implemented well. It would be an interesting challenge for a legal system famous for Bleak House ;)

Re:Wait, model it after Ebay dispute resolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well we could always go for the model that American business wants . You have to go to an arbitration board they decide and you can not then go to a court of Law.

Re:Wait, model it after Ebay dispute resolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course - this sort of system is designed to favour big business at the expense of anything resembling an equitable free market, just like everything a Thatcherite government proposes.

Re:Wait, model it after Ebay dispute resolution?

[matbury]

Hang on, the UK court system has had online small claims procedures for at least 8 years. I had to take a UK company that sold me a "dud" refurbished laptop to court online because they were being evasive and refusing to give a full refund in order to comply with UK consumer protection laws, i.e. the company has to "make good" on ALL costs incurred by the customer as a result of the faulty transaction.

Ebay's complaints procedure doesn't follow UK law and doesn't require sellers to "make good." You may get a flat refund for the price paid for the goods but none of the other costs, e.g. the cost of returning the goods, which is the company's responsibility to arrange for collection, and any transaction fees (banking and Ebay) incurred. If you have a serious, well-founded complaint against an Ebay vendor in the UK or any country with decent, effective consumer protection laws and procedures, you're much better off going that route than through Ebay.

Re:Wait, model it after Ebay dispute resolution?

[davester666]

I thought they were referring to ebay's original operating model...highest bidder wins.

Re:Wait, model it after Ebay dispute resolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

The notoriously bad and unfair Ebay dispute resolution? I hope they don't just mean "the buyer always wins"

I'm sure they are talking about the Ebay bidding system. Modeled after the US justice system where the entity fronting the most cash (almost) always wins.

Re:Wait, model it after Ebay dispute resolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

UK (and indeed EU) have consumer protection laws that prohibit such stupid arbitration clauses. Your statutory rights are not affected.

how about "NO!"

[ihtoit]

Our legal system is established over TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS and when it works it works well. When it's raped for profit, as this move clearly is a move to make profit, justice suffers. This has been working its way through alternative media for a while now (UKColumn has some great pieces on it), the response has been global damnation.

Re:how about "NO!"

[BarbaraHudson]

I wouldn't want to risk the equivalent of a 25-thousand-Euro judgment because my internet was slow or other reasons. It's important to see the other side in court, because when they lie you can immediately nail them and that leaves a heck of an impression. Doing it in slo-mo over the internet, not so much.

Re:how about "NO!"

[ihtoit]

the thing is, they're looking at not just money claims for this, they're looking at deciding summary cases online as well! It's bad enough that plans are already afoot to embed magistrates in police stations - these are people who can send you to prison without a jury trial for up to two YEARS - now we're talking about full-on judges who have the entire sentencing structure to choose from - added to that the fact that you are NOT guaranteed a jury trial, and if you demand one after the judge has said no, you have no appeal against that decision. He'll more than likely have you excluded from the chamber and carry on in your absence.

Re:how about "NO!"

[AmiMoJo]

These courts are not like that. This would be for "small claims", a system I have used before against PayPal and Royal Mail.

Basically it is the two parties and a judge. It's fairly informal. In the PayPal case they didn't even send anyone so I won by default. In the Royal Mail case they sent a lawyer but there was no cross-examination or anything like that. The judge asked us both questions and we made our points, never asking each other anything. The whole thing only took half an hour.

It's a way to sort out relatively small disputes and can be appealed. Usually the amounts involved are small, a few hundred pounds. Most cases are an individual vs a company that has cost them money somehow (there are no punitive damages, just actual monetary losses). That being the case doing it online might actually work against the individual since it makes it easier for the company to participate. The hearing is at the complainant's local court, so in the case of PayPal they would have had to appoint a local lawyer or send someone from their head office down here.

I doubt there would be any kind of real-time interaction with this system. It would be like eBay's system where you have deadlines of a few days or weeks to submit information which they then review and apply the law/rules accordingly. Then you realize eBay's system is shit and just do a credit card charge-back instead.

Re:how about "NO!"

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK and the rest of Europe, you can do this process entirely by (snail) mail, and across borders. I've done this myself, but I got a rather odd ruling from the judge. He or she basically decided to dismiss the case with no ruling, and with the possibility to refile. This was a bit odd as it was after myself and the defending party had gone through the effort (read: time and money) of making our cases, and the clerks had wasted time and money with lots of registered mail to all parties, and then the court couldn't collect any fees because no one was deemed at fault. It was decided something like two days before Christmas, so I figure they just wanted to get it off the books for the year.

Re:how about "NO!"

[BarbaraHudson]

I thought the ABSOs were bad enough ... violating such an order can get you 5 years in the pokey, even though ABSOs are civil, not criminal orders.

The list is ridiculous. Suicide (if someone's depressed enough to try to kill themselves, they need help, not a prohibitory order), posting signs on public property ("Have you seen my cat"), urinating discretely in public (judges here have ruled that "when you've got to go, you've got to go - just don't be obvious about it), rudeness (so much for comedies), wearing one glove (no Michael Jackson fan events for YOU).

And the allowing of hearsay as "evidence"? Just dumb.

Re:how about "NO!"

[gbjbaanb]

dismiss the case with no ruling... because no one was deemed at fault

I just wonder what outcome you expected given those two statements?

Re:how about "NO!"

[Anonymous Coward]

wearing one glove

Wat? What kind of issue is that? The only thing I could think for someone to wear one glove and for it to "offensive" is if the common reason for only having one glove was that you had challenged someone to duel and couldn't wear that glove anymore since it touched someone who was "filthy"... and that's something I could have expected to see from law that was passed with one that forbid duels, so something that may have happened ~200 years ago.

Re:how about "NO!"

[gbjbaanb]

I doubt its to make profit, lower costs so more people can benefit from justice... but that's hardly a bad thing.

I imagine it'll be an online way to submit forms and evidences by both parties (in a back-and-forth manner) which will be ruled upon when all the bits are uploaded.

The small claims court works pretty well, and it perhaps the model for the rest of the judiciary, but then the lawyers wouldn't be able to stretch out the case with bullshit and legalities to collect fees for longer.

Re:how about "NO!"

[BarbaraHudson]

It's because wearing one glove was seen as a symbol of gang affiliation. Same as Doc Martens and different-coloured laces.

Re:how about "NO!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... I was expecting to win and have the money I claimed paid to me. I did make a decent case with documentation in writing from the defendant, which was why the outcome was so odd. It wasn't like some jerk-off showing up on Judge Judy with the he-said/she-said. Furthermore, if the clerks had thought the case completely without merit, they would have never served papers on the defendant in the first place. They're very busy and really not in the business of just messing around with people.

Maybe you are not understanding what those statements mean? Having a "ruling" has a particular legal meaning that the case was decided and cannot be retried, as in no double jeopardy, although it can be appealed. "Dismissing" a case by itself carries no implications. It's just the judge saying that they are done with the case. Also, "at fault" just means that you were the loser. I could have been judged "at fault" even though I hadn't done anything, and I wouldn't have been liable for any costs of the defendant, but I would have been liable for court fees.

The courts could have easily just picked one side and pocketed their £120 from either of us, but they didn't.

Re:how about "NO!"

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you collect from Paypal?

Re:how about "NO!"

[ihtoit]

damn.

Wait, do Caterpillars and different coloured laces count?

Re:how about "NO!"

[mjwx]

I wouldn't want to risk the equivalent of a 25-thousand-Euro judgment because my internet was slow or other reasons. It's important to see the other side in court, because when they lie you can immediately nail them and that leaves a heck of an impression. Doing it in slo-mo over the internet, not so much.

I read the article, I know thats a cardinal sin here on /. but still.

Looks like they're not changing anything about the small claims dispute process, they're just allowing it to occur over the interwebs. This means you still submit the same evidence and arguments to the same kind of judge who weighs the evidence and arguments. At worse you may have to have a telephone conversation or conference, but that's it. This is a good thing as it will save you from having to take a day off work to go to court, save expensive court rooms for more important cases and that the judge can now do his job in his undies.

This also means the judge doesn't have to put up with rambling amateur legal arguments from people who pronounce "specifically" as "pacificly".

The article made it quite clear that telephone will be an option as web conferencing isn't always reliable.

Re:how about "NO!"

[BarbaraHudson]

Still, I want to do this sort of thing in person.

Wonderful!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ebay, where the buyer is always right! Unless you're of course you have someone film you packing the item and then follow you as you send it off.... and then the buyer just gets to declare it defective.

And if you're a seller, you better be from China so you can change your name/address/and other identifying info rather easily to get back in the saddle, as it were.

Yup. Ebay justice. Find out the procedure ebay/the court cares about to do things, don't care about the details, and become a winner! It's certainly efficient, I'll grant it that. The results might suck, but they get shit done, and that's what counts, right?

Silverlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then you have to download a crappy, malware and adware ridden silverlight (or javascript or flash, depending on who bribed the Ministry of Justice most).

Somehow UK has managed to be the most advanced country towards Dystopia. Perhaps it's no coincidence that Aldous Huxley and George Orwell are its illustrious children.

Re:Silverlight?

[retech]

Don't forget to add in Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Just look at ITIL to see how much paperwork the Brit's think is reasonable to get next to nothing done. Triplicate upon triplicate.

There is a reason for a court of law...

[Nemosoft Unv.]

The problem is, by the time you end up in court, you're usually way past any reasonable dispute resolution. You don't just go to court over a bad product, a failed warranty, a refund or bad service (at least not in the UK...). No, you have a fundamental problem that needs to be sorted out. And forcing the two complainants to be in the same room may actually help with that...

Deskilling justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Only the judge need be legally qualified...

Why have a judge? An expert system with a legal database would be far more unbiased, quicker and cheaper.

Highest bidder

[bluefoxlucid]

Whoever brings the most money wins.

Re:Highest bidder

[Anonymous Coward]

So not so different from the American Court System.

Re:Highest bidder

[ArhcAngel]

Whoever brings the most money wins.

There will be in-court purchases to give you a leg up on the competition and a ladder board to rank your skill against other plaintiffs. There will also be badges for different case types to encourage you to file as many different types as you can.

Re:Highest bidder

[bluefoxlucid]

Ace Attorney: Steam Edition

Re:Highest bidder

[PopeRatzo]

Whoever brings the most money wins.

Justice: BUY IT NOW

Re:Highest bidder

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever brings the most money wins.

Free to play
Pay to win

Dogs

[Mikkeles]

So, in court, no one knows you're a dog?

There is a reason for a court of law...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You don't just go to court over a bad product, a failed warranty, a refund or bad service"

Yes you do, it's called the Small Claims Court and I've known several people who have gone down that route for exactly that kind of issue when they couldn't get satisfaction out of the company.

Buttbook

[tepples]

They can tell you're a dog because your social network profile is on Buttbook instead of Facebook.

Uh...??

[Anonymous Coward]

We actually do that here in BC,Canada for Residential Tenancy Act disputes. You file your paperwork at the office, and then you wait for a phone call. If the other guy doesn't answer, you win automatically.

Applying it to all Civil disputes seems like the logical way to not waste an actual court's time. It's also much more transparent.

Feedback

[SeaFox]

His defense was a pushover. Would sue again. A+++++

Not voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many issues remain unresolved, including whether there would be online court listings and public access to proceedings as exists in traditional civil courts. Some litigants may feel deprived of an assumed right to have their day in court, where they hope to air grievances before a sympathetic judge.

Love to see the feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

99.7% positive feedback

Prompt litigation, paid up in a timely manner.
Would definitely take to court again.