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?

[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.

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!"

[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!"

[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!"

[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.

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...

Highest bidder

[bluefoxlucid]

Whoever brings the most money wins.

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

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.

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.

Buttbook

[tepples]

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