Ministry of Justice reforms: what changed and when

Ministry of Justice reforms: what changed and when?

A dated list is more useful than a narrative, because the question a practitioner usually has is whether a particular change is in force yet.

Each of these is covered in depth elsewhere on this site, and the sections below explain what each one means and where to read further.

How did Ministry of Justice reforms change litigation costs?

By capping what a winning party can recover in most claims up to £100,000, regardless of what was actually spent.

The extension took effect on 1 October 2023 and introduced a fourth track. Small claims remain up to £10,000, the fast track covers £10,000 to £25,000, the new intermediate track covers roughly £25,000 to £100,000 with cases assigned to complexity bands, and the multi-track handles the rest.

The commercial consequence is that costs recovery is now predictable and frequently lower than costs incurred, with the shortfall falling on the client. That changes the economics of a case before a document is drafted, which is why whether a claim falls inside or outside the regime has become a strategic question in itself. Our guide to the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the track structure and CPR Part 45 in more detail.

Can courts now force parties into mediation?

Yes, and this is the change most likely to have been missed, because it altered the overriding objective itself.

In Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416, decided on 29 November 2023, the Court of Appeal held that courts do have power to stay proceedings for, or order parties to engage in, a non-court dispute resolution process. That reversed the settled reading of Halsey, under which judges could only encourage ADR and penalise unreasonable refusal in costs.

From 1 October 2024 the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2024 built Churchill into the code. CPR 1.1(2)(f) now includes promoting or using ADR within the overriding objective, CPR 3.1(2)(o) gives the express power to order it, and Parts 28, 29 and 44 follow through on directions and costs.

What did the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 do?

Two things, both narrowing or reshaping the supervisory jurisdiction.

Section 2 abolished Cart judicial reviews, the route by which certain Upper Tribunal refusals of permission to appeal could themselves be judicially reviewed. It took effect on 14 July 2022, and the practical impact falls hardest on immigration and asylum work.

Section 1 inserted section 29A into the Senior Courts Act 1981, allowing a quashing order to be suspended until a specified date, or to have its retrospective effect removed or limited. That changes what a successful claim is worth, because winning no longer necessarily means the decision is treated as never having been made. Our judicial review guide covers both, alongside the statutory no substantial difference test that governs permission and relief.

Where did the Ministry of Justice court digitisation programme end up?

It finished. The HMCTS court reform programme launched in 2016 and formally closed in March 2025, and the Ministry of Justice has since published evaluation reports on what it delivered.

This matters for how firms talk about digital courts. The programme is not an ongoing transformation to prepare for; it is a completed piece of work whose outputs are now business as usual. It comprised 44 projects across five workstreams covering crime, civil, family and tribunals, the court estate, and cross-cutting projects such as video hearing technology, and HMCTS expected it to deliver substantial recurring savings.

What remains is operational development rather than programme delivery. County courts launched a digital service for damages and money claims up to £25,000 for legal representatives in 2024, digital case dashboards are now routine, and use of the small claims mediation service has continued to grow.

The practical point for firms is that the questions have moved on from whether to adopt digital filing to whether internal processes match what the digital services now expect, and what happens when a digital process fails. On that last point, see our guide to court administrative error and relief from sanctions.

What is happening to the Crown Court backlog?

It has roughly doubled since 2019, and the government’s response is the most contested justice reform currently in play.

The Ministry of Justice recorded a backlog of 73,105 Crown Court cases in December 2024, up around 10 per cent on the previous year and close to double the pre-pandemic figure. By mid 2025 the outstanding caseload had passed 76,000, with some trials being listed years ahead. The department has acknowledged that even at maximum capacity the backlog would continue to grow.

Capacity has been increased at the margins. Crown Court sitting days rose from 106,500 to 108,500 in one financial year, followed by a record allocation of 110,000. Nobody involved treats sitting days alone as the answer.

The Leveson review

In December 2024 the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review of the criminal courts. Part 1, the policy review, was published on 9 July 2025 and described a system in crisis. Part 2, addressing efficiency, followed and drew responses from the profession in early 2026.

Part 1’s recommendations were structural rather than incremental: diverting more cases out of the court system through out-of-court resolutions for lower level offending, expanding deferred prosecution, reducing the right of appeal from the magistrates’ courts, and restricting the availability of jury trial in certain categories of case, including judge-only trials for some fraud.

The government responded in December 2025 with a package of measures including a proposal to curtail jury trials for offences likely to attract a sentence of less than three years.

Why the profession is split

Support for tackling the backlog is universal. Support for the method is not.

The Law Society has welcomed increased sitting days, video infrastructure investment and additional court staff, while arguing that the proposals go too far in eroding the right to jury trial, and that lasting reform requires sustained funding for court capacity and the profession rather than rushed legislation. The Bar Council has similarly welcomed diversion from the criminal justice system while warning against removing jury trial.

For criminal practitioners this is not an abstract policy debate. If enacted, restrictions of this kind change the forum, the preparation and the fee structure for a substantial share of a criminal defence caseload.

Where does legal aid stand?

Under review, with the criminal courts review having pulled funding structures into scope alongside the wider question of sustainability.

Part 2 of the Leveson review addressed legal aid funding structures, training pathways and staged payment mechanisms for defence practitioners, alongside broader systemic issues including the physical court estate and its maintenance backlog. That is a recognition that court efficiency and practitioner supply are the same problem viewed from different ends.

Operationally, the Legal Aid Agency’s digital services have been a subject of parliamentary questions, with ministers committing to additional investment in restoring them. Firms doing publicly funded work will have their own view of the practical impact, and it is worth recording rather than absorbing.

For firms, the planning question is whether legal aid work remains viable at current rates and payment timing, and that is a business model question rather than a policy one. Firms exiting publicly funded work reduce supply, which feeds back into the delay figures above.

What is changing in sentencing?

The Sentencing Act 2026 is the most recent reform, extending into release and post-sentence provisions that the Sentencing Code deliberately left out.

The background matters for understanding it. The Sentencing Act 2020 created the Sentencing Code, consolidating over 1,300 pages of sentencing procedure from 65 Acts into a single statute, in force from 1 December 2020. It did not cover release and recall, which is precisely the gap the current reform reaches. We set out the chronology in our guide to the history of sentencing law, and the substance in our coverage of the Sentencing Act 2026.

What is changing in how solicitors are regulated?

The largest change is not from the Ministry of Justice at all, but it will affect every firm within scope of the money laundering regulations.

The government confirmed in October 2025 that the FCA will become the Single Professional Services Supervisor for AML, replacing the SRA in that role. The transfer requires legislation and has not commenced, so the SRA remains the AML supervisor for now. When it takes effect, firms will have two regulators: the FCA for AML and the SRA for everything else. Our guide to FCA AML supervision explains the timing and what to prepare.

Alongside that, the SRA is consulting on advance notification requirements around mergers and client money, and reports of potential misconduct have risen sharply, with the regulator reviewing 8,955 in the six months to April 2026.

What should firms do about the Ministry of Justice reforms?

Most of these reforms reward preparation that has to happen before a matter starts rather than after it goes wrong.

• Reprice against fixed recoverable costs. Identify which of your claim types now fall inside the regime and what the recovery gap looks like, then decide whether the retainer conversation happens at the outset or at assessment.
• Have a position on ADR before directions. With the power to order ADR now express, a refusal needs a reason you would be content to give the court, and the client needs to understand that before it arises.
• Check your judicial review precedents. Anything referencing Cart reviews, or assuming a quashing order operates retrospectively as a matter of course, is out of date.
• Review criminal caseload assumptions. If jury trial restrictions proceed, forum, preparation and fee structures change for a share of the work, and firms with concentrated criminal defence practices should model that now.
• Track the AML transfer. Commencement will bring registration and fee arrangements, and the transitional detail is where the administrative burden will land.

The common thread is that none of these are things a firm can do in the week the change takes effect.