For journalists
A campaign to reword one rule of civil procedure so that fairness is named in the overriding objective, where cost already is. One amendment, no Act of Parliament. Everything below is on the record and checkable.
The ask, in one paragraph
In rule 1.1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, for “justly and at proportionate cost” substitute “fairly, justly and at proportionate cost”, and the same in the opening words of rule 1.1(2). Cost was added to that sentence in 2013. Fairness has never been in it.
Key facts
Free specialist legal advice is estimated to save the Treasury about £908 million for every 100,000 people who receive it. The average wait from claim to trial is 68.6 weeks on the most recent quarterly figures; one case in this campaign waited 283, four years and one month longer. Some 3.5 million people live in areas with no civil legal aid provider at all. Parliament’s own Justice Committee called the County Court “a dysfunctional operation” in 2025. Each figure, with its source, is on the evidence page.
The materials
The five-page plan, with sources on every page, is here: download the Fairness First plan (PDF). You are welcome to quote from it and from this site with attribution to Fairness First.
The argument for why the rule has to change, with the Act, the figures and the sources, is set out here: why this has to change.
What a bank and a council wrote in their own internal records, every line of it obtained by asking each organisation for the information it held, is set out on what their own records show.
The banking case
Five and a half years over an arrears claim of £21,553.58. Twelve hearings listed, ten held, 283 weeks from claim to trial against a national mean of 68.6. Every line of it is taken from documents filed in the proceedings, orders made in them, the Court’s own correspondence and an approved judgment transcript, and the proceedings are continuing. Read the banking case in four acts, or see the gates side by side on How the system closes.
The press pack holds the Financial Ombudsman’s decision of 9 July 2019, the firm’s letters and emails of 3, 6, 7 and 8 April 2020 and its solicitors’ letters of 3 and 9 April 2020, with the names of staff and the customer’s details removed and every date, reference and role kept. Download the banking pack (PDF, fourteen pages, 1.6 MB, opens in a new tab). Nothing filed in the proceedings is in it.
A separate annex carries extracts from three of the firm’s own call recordings, 31 January, 3 February and 6 February 2020, in the handler’s own words. (PDF, four pages, 46 KB, opens in a new tab). No individual is named and the customer’s personal details are removed.
The social care story
Due to unexpected and exceptional circumstances, this family cannot tell its own story. So the institutions tell it, in their own letters.
The council said sorry after the ombudsman had shut the door twice. A family’s complaint about a London council’s children’s social care went through every free route. Each shut, in the institutions’ own words: not upheld at stage one and stage two, out of time, and outside the ombudsman’s powers. Then a senior manager wrote to say sorry. The only route left runs on rule 1.1. Read the page.
The press pack holds the ombudsman’s two letters and the council’s apology, with the family’s names and address and the names of officers removed, and every date, reference and role kept. The children concerned were minors at the time and are adults now; they are not identified and nothing about them is published. Download the social care pack (PDF, seven pages, 1 MB, opens in a new tab). The documents that describe the substance of the complaint can be shown to a journalist for verification, on terms that protect the children. Write to [email protected] to arrange it.
A quote you may use
This is not about my case. It is about the rule that decided how my case was run, and the accident that let me prove it.
Stuart Thompson, Fairness First.
My case is nothing in comparison to many that I’ve followed. The only exception is the accident that led to this campaign.
Stuart Thompson, Fairness First.
Contact
Write to [email protected] and we will respond quickly.
This campaign is not connected to any political party and does not support or oppose any party or candidate. The case referred to is Santander UK PLC v Stuart Thompson, claim G1PP9250; the proceedings are continuing and nothing here is intended to influence them. Court words are quoted in short extract and are Crown copyright. The family in the social care account is not named and is not identified. The campaign will not identify them, and asks that any report does the same. Nothing on this page is legal advice.