# Courts system - should the taxpayer be paying the cost of private disputes?



## csirl (5 Mar 2012)

Firstly,  this thread is not about the abolishment of the civil courts system. In any functioning society it is essential that citizens and businesses can avail of impartial dispute resolution which is enforceable. This is solely about who pays the costs of certain types of dispute.

The question is, why does the taxpayer pay a large proportion of the costs of private disputes between individuals/companies etc.

It is acknowledged that the participating parties pay the lawyers fees in a dispute. But these are only a portion of the overall cost of a court case. You've got Judges salaries, courts staff salaries, costs of providing facilities i.e. running courthouses/offices etc. These costs are very significant and at the moment are paid by the taxpayer.

If two private parties cannot agree on something, then why should I as a taxpayer pick up the tab for their dispute?

The civil litigation system in this country should be cost neutral whereby the parties (usually the loser) are billed the real costs incurred by the taxpayer in sorting out their dispute. Its shouldnt be too difficult to boil the annual cost to the State into a per day/session/hour amount to be paid by the participants.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Mar 2012)

Hi csirl

An interesting idea, but I think that the more fundamental issue is really the cost, the efficiency and access to the civil courts.

The Financial Services Ombudsman has done a good job in making it a lawyer-free zone. The Employment Appeals Tribunal is supposed to be lawyer-free as well, but it's hard to go there without a lawyer. At least, you don't have to pay the other side's costs. 

Many debtors use the justice system to avoid paying their debts, knowing that creditors just won't change them.

I would go after this issue as a priority. When it's sorted, I would look at charging the litigants for the use of the civil court's time.


----------



## One (23 Mar 2012)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi csirl
> 
> 
> Many debtors use the justice system to avoid paying their debts, knowing that creditors just won't change them.
> ...


 
I agree.


----------



## One (23 Mar 2012)

Csirl, your question certainly is a good question. I think there may be merit in looking at some cases where a litigant has been completely in the wrong and asking ourselves should that person be made to pay court costs? I suspect there would be some cases where the answer is yes. But as a general rule, I don't know.


----------



## Condatis (21 Dec 2012)

The administration of justice has been a core element of all civilisations since mankind began to organise society.

Whenever a person felt that they where the subject of unfair or unreasonable treatment by another they could appeal either to a King or to a Court.

It is a widely accepted principle of "Fundemental Justice" that every person can rely on the State to protect their interests if they are attacked or abused by another party.

This principle has evolved from the concept of applying to a village elder, a tribal chief, a King, to nowadays; a Court, for ajudication in a dispute.

While there is a cost to the administration of justice in any system it is one that must be borne. It would be an abomination to put an unreasonable financial impediment in the way of any person who seeks to have a wrong righted.

This is not to say that where an action is vexatious or spurious that it should be entertained. However the State; as the arbiter of justice, must discharge this duty without fear or favour.


----------



## Condatis (21 Dec 2012)

The administration of justice has been a core element of all civilisations since mankind began to organise society.

Whenever a person felt that they where the subject of unfair or unreasonable treatment by another they could appeal either to a King or to a Court.

It is a widely accepted principle of "Fundemental Justice" that every person can rely on the State to protect their interests if they are attacked or abused by another party.

This principle has evolved from the concept of applying to a village elder, a tribal chief, a King, to nowadays; a Court, for ajudication in a dispute.

While there is a cost to the administration of justice in any system it is one that must be borne. It would be an abomination to put an unreasonable financial impediment in the way of any person who seeks to have a wrong righted.

This is not to say that where an action is vexatious or spurious that it should be entertained. However the State; as the arbiter of justice, must discharge this duty without fear or favour.


----------

