Before you can advise a client on anything, you need to understand where disputes actually get resolved. The court structure in England and Wales isn't just academic — it determines which judge hears the case, what procedures apply, and where you can appeal if things go wrong.
England and Wales operates a common law system. That means judges don't just apply statutes — they also develop the law through their decisions. Previous court rulings (called precedents) are binding on lower courts, so the hierarchy of courts really matters. A decision from the Supreme Court carries far more weight than one from a County Court.
Most of continental Europe uses a civil law system, where judges primarily apply detailed codes written by legislators. In common law systems like ours, the law grows organically through case decisions. Think of it this way: civil law judges look up the answer in the code, while common law judges also look at what previous judges decided in similar situations.
The SQE loves testing whether you know which court hears which type of case. Get the court hierarchy clear in your head early — it underpins everything from procedure to appeals to precedent.
Civil cases cover everything that isn't criminal — contract disputes, negligence claims, property disagreements, family matters. The system is designed so that simpler, lower-value cases start in lower courts, while complex or high-value disputes go straight to the higher courts.
The County Court is the workhorse of the civil system. Most civil claims start here. It handles contract and tort claims, housing disputes, debt recovery, and personal injury cases. Since 2014, there's technically one County Court for all of England and Wales, though it sits in many locations.
When a civil claim is filed, it gets allocated to one of three tracks based on value and complexity. The small claims track handles claims up to £10,000 (or £1,000 for personal injury). The fast track covers claims from £10,000 to £25,000. The multi-track deals with everything above £25,000 or particularly complex cases.
| Track | Value Range | Typical Duration | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small Claims | Up to £10,000 | 1 day or less | Informal, limited costs recovery, no expert evidence usually |
| Fast Track | £10,000 – £25,000 | Trial within 30 weeks | Standard disclosure, one expert per party, fixed costs |
| Multi-Track | Over £25,000 | Varies | Full case management, multiple experts, costs budgeting |
The High Court handles the more serious civil cases. It has three divisions, each specialising in different areas. Cases worth over £100,000 (or £50,000 for personal injury) typically start here, though some cases go to the High Court regardless of value — for example, judicial review claims.
If you lose in the County Court or High Court, your next stop is the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). You'll usually need permission to appeal, either from the court that made the original decision or from the Court of Appeal itself. Appeals are heard by Lords Justices of Appeal, typically sitting in panels of three.
You don't have an automatic right to appeal in most civil cases. You need to show that the appeal has a real prospect of success or that there's some other compelling reason for it to be heard. Many appeals are refused at the permission stage — advise your clients accordingly.
Criminal cases follow a different path through the courts. The key thing to understand is that the type of offence determines which court hears the case. There are three categories: summary offences, either-way offences, and indictable-only offences.
Summary offences are the least serious — things like common assault, minor driving offences, and low-value criminal damage. They're tried only in the Magistrates' Court. Indictable-only offences are the most serious — murder, rape, robbery. They must be tried in the Crown Court. Either-way offences fall in the middle — theft, ABH, burglary. They can be tried in either court.
| Classification | Examples | Trial Court | Key Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | Common assault, minor driving offences | Magistrates' Court only | No jury, maximum 6 months custody per offence |
| Either-way | Theft, ABH, burglary | Magistrates' or Crown Court | Defendant can elect Crown Court trial |
| Indictable-only | Murder, rape, robbery | Crown Court only | Always tried before a judge and jury |
The Magistrates' Court deals with about 95% of all criminal cases. Cases are heard either by a bench of two or three lay magistrates (also called Justices of the Peace), or by a single District Judge. There's no jury. Magistrates can impose sentences of up to six months' imprisonment per offence (12 months for consecutive sentences) and fines up to £5,000 for most offences.
The Crown Court handles all indictable-only offences, either-way offences sent or committed from the Magistrates' Court, and appeals from the Magistrates' Court. Trials are heard by a judge sitting with a jury of 12. The judge decides questions of law, while the jury decides questions of fact — most importantly, whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
A defendant convicted in the Crown Court can appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). You need leave (permission) to appeal. The Court of Appeal can quash a conviction if it's unsafe, or vary a sentence. Importantly, the prosecution can also appeal against unduly lenient sentences under the Attorney General's reference procedure.
For either-way offences, even if the magistrates agree to hear the case, the defendant can insist on a Crown Court trial with a jury. This is a fundamental right. Some defendants prefer the Crown Court because acquittal rates are statistically higher with juries.
The Supreme Court sits at the top of both the civil and criminal court hierarchies. It was created by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and opened in October 2009, replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The move was all about the separation of powers — it wasn't right for the highest court to be part of the legislature.
The Supreme Court is composed of 12 Justices, headed by the President of the Supreme Court. Cases are normally heard by panels of five, though particularly important cases may have seven, nine, or even all eleven Justices sitting. You need permission to appeal, and it's only granted where the case raises a point of law of general public importance.
Unlike the US Supreme Court, the UK Supreme Court cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty means that an Act of Parliament is the supreme form of law. However, the Supreme Court can make a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, signalling that legislation conflicts with Convention rights. Parliament then decides whether to amend the law.
The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the highest court, but it did NOT gain the power to strike down legislation. Parliamentary sovereignty survived the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. This is a common exam trap — remember that declarations of incompatibility are just that: declarations, not orders to change the law.
Not every dispute goes to court. Tribunals handle specialist areas of law — immigration, tax, employment, social security, and more. They were reformed by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which created a unified two-tier structure: the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal.
The First-tier Tribunal is where most tribunal cases start. It's divided into chambers, each dealing with a different area — for example, the Social Entitlement Chamber or the Tax Chamber. If you're unhappy with the decision, you can appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law. The Upper Tribunal's decisions can create binding precedents, just like the High Court.
Employment Tribunals deserve a special mention because they're so commonly encountered in practice. They handle unfair dismissal claims, discrimination claims, wage disputes, and redundancy payments. Appeals go to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), then to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
If an exam question asks you to advise on the best forum for an employment or immigration dispute, think tribunals first. They're purpose-built for these areas. Courts handle the broader civil and criminal caseload.
Judges are the people who actually run the courts, hear cases, and hand down decisions. The judiciary in England and Wales is organised in a clear hierarchy, from lay magistrates at the bottom to Supreme Court Justices at the top. Each level has different titles, qualifications, and jurisdictions.
Before 2006, judges were effectively appointed by the Lord Chancellor through a secretive "tap on the shoulder" process. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to make the process transparent and based on merit. The JAC selects candidates through open competition and recommends them for appointment.
The key principle is selection on merit. The JAC assesses candidates against published criteria including legal knowledge, intellectual capacity, judgment, and communication skills. The aim is a judiciary that's both excellent and more representative of the society it serves, though critics argue progress on diversity has been slow.
Judicial independence is one of the most important constitutional principles. Judges must be free to decide cases according to the law, without pressure from the government, Parliament, or anyone else. If a government minister could ring up a judge and tell them how to decide a case, the rule of law would be meaningless.
Senior judges hold office "during good behaviour" and can only be removed by an address of both Houses of Parliament. This has never actually happened. This security of tenure means judges can make unpopular decisions without fear of being sacked. It's a vital safeguard — imagine a judge being too scared to rule against the government because they might lose their job.
The separation of powers is the idea that the three branches of the state — the legislature (Parliament), the executive (government), and the judiciary (courts) — should be kept separate. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was a major step forward: it reformed the role of the Lord Chancellor, created the Supreme Court, and established the JAC. Before this, the Lord Chancellor sat in all three branches — an obvious breach of the principle.
The UK doesn't have a strict separation of powers like the United States. Government ministers sit in Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor still has some involvement with the judiciary. It's better described as a partial separation with checks and balances. Don't claim in an exam that the UK has a full separation of powers — it doesn't.
Solicitors are the lawyers most people deal with directly. They advise clients, draft documents, handle transactions, and manage cases. They're regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and must hold a current practising certificate. Since the SQE was introduced, the route to qualification involves passing SQE1 and SQE2 plus completing two years of qualifying work experience.
Barristers are specialist advocates and legal advisers. They're regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB). Traditionally, they work from chambers (shared offices) and are self-employed. Clients usually can't hire a barrister directly — they go through a solicitor who instructs the barrister. However, the "cab rank rule" means barristers must accept any case in their area of expertise if they're available.
Rights of audience means the right to speak on behalf of a client in court. Barristers have full rights of audience in all courts. Solicitors automatically have rights of audience in the lower courts (Magistrates' and County Court), but need a higher courts advocacy qualification to appear in the Crown Court, High Court, and above. This distinction has become less rigid over time.
The SQE frequently tests which body regulates which profession. Remember: SRA for solicitors, BSB for barristers, CILEx Regulation for legal executives. Get these pairings memorised — they come up in multiple-choice questions all the time.
Going to court is expensive, slow, and stressful. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers ways to settle disputes without a full trial. Courts actively encourage ADR — in fact, unreasonably refusing to consider ADR can result in costs penalties, even if you win the case. Since the landmark case of Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004], the courts have been clear that ADR should be seriously considered.
Mediation is the most common form of ADR. A neutral third party (the mediator) helps the parties negotiate a settlement. The mediator doesn't impose a decision — they facilitate discussion and help the parties find common ground. It's voluntary, confidential, and non-binding until an agreement is reached and signed. It's particularly effective in commercial disputes and family law.
Arbitration is more formal than mediation. The parties agree to submit their dispute to an arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators) who makes a binding decision called an award. It's governed by the Arbitration Act 1996. Arbitration is hugely popular in international commercial disputes because it's private, the parties can choose their arbitrator, and awards are enforceable internationally under the New York Convention.
Adjudication is mainly used in construction disputes. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, parties to a construction contract have a right to refer disputes to an adjudicator at any time. The adjudicator must reach a decision within 28 days. The decision is binding on an interim basis — meaning you must comply, but you can challenge it later in court or arbitration.
| Method | Binding? | Who Decides? | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mediation | No (until agreement signed) | Parties themselves, with mediator's help | Preserving relationships, flexible solutions |
| Arbitration | Yes | Arbitrator | Commercial disputes, international matters |
| Adjudication | Interim (can be challenged later) | Adjudicator | Construction disputes, quick resolution |
As a solicitor, you should always discuss ADR options with your client before issuing proceedings. The Pre-Action Protocols require parties to consider ADR. If your client refuses without a good reason and then wins at trial, the court may reduce the costs they recover. Always document your ADR advice in writing.
Three mistakes that trip people up: (1) Saying the Supreme Court can strike down Acts of Parliament — it can't. (2) Confusing either-way offences with summary offences — remember, defendants can elect Crown Court trial for either-way offences. (3) Forgetting that arbitration awards are binding but mediation outcomes are not (unless agreed in writing).
Draw the court hierarchy from memory — civil on one side, criminal on the other, Supreme Court at the top. If you can sketch it out without looking, you've got the foundation for this topic locked in.