Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:23:36.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

JA Jolowicz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a widespread belief in this country that while England and the other common law countries have an adversarial system of civil procedure, continental countries use the inquisitorial system. The fact is, however, that the only kind of situation in which a truly inquisitorial procedure can be envisaged is exemplified when a policeman who, arriving at the scene of a fracas, opens the proceedings with the time honoured formula, ‘What's going on here?’ Short of that, there is nothing to which an inquisitorial judge can direct his inquiry unless and until a complaint of some kind is addressed to him. Even writers on French administrative law, whose procedure is claimed to be inquisitorial, find it difficult to avoid language that might be thought more appropriate to an adversary system. So for example, it is said that notice of the complaint must be given to all those whom the claimant indicates as his opponents.

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 281 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lenoan, , La procédure devant le Conseil d'Etat (1954), 109.Google Scholar

2 P& M, II 574. See also D v NSPCC [1978] AC 171, 230, per Lord Simon of Glaisdale.

3 ‘The Nature of Judicial Process’ (1950) 25 Tulane Law Review, 1, 7.

4 Nouveau code de procédure civile, Art 16. Unless otherwise stated, future references to articles are to articles of this code.

5 The principle is similar to but goes further than the familiar audit alteram partem.

6 See Jacob, IH, The Fabric of English Civil Justice (London: Stevens & Sons, 1987), 19. The admission of documentary material in evidence is now more widespread than previously, but if a jury is engaged, orality is essential.Google Scholar

7 ‘Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice’ (1906) 40 Am Lr 729, 738–9. Note Lord Denning's remark in Burmah Oil Co v Bank of England [1979] 1 WLR 473, 484, when he said ‘In litigation as in war. If one side makes a mistake, the other can take advantage of it. No holds are barred.’.

8 ‘Facultades y deberes del juez en el moderno proceso civil’, in >Revista Iberoamericana de Derecho Prcesal (1968), 393, 395–6.Revista+Iberoamericana+de+Derecho+Prcesal+(1968),+393,+395–6.>Google Scholar

9 Wigmore, JH, Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 3rd edn (Boston: Little Brown, 1940), para 1367.Google Scholar

10 CPRr 1.1 and footnote to the Third Revision.

11 [1983] 2 AC 394.

12 [1983] 2 AC, 410, as quoted by Lord Denning.

13 Ibid, at 411.

14 Ibid, at 438. Emphasis added.

15 At 441. Emphasis in original.

16 Interim Report, 7.

17 Interim Report, 191 Final Report, 14.

18 Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid (1997), 9.Google Scholar

19 The Honourable JJ Spigelman AC ‘Judicial Accountability and Performance Indicators’ (2002) 21 CJQ 18, 26.

20 Davis v Eli Lilly and Co [1987] w1 WLR 428, 431.

21 Final Report, 29.

22 CPR, r 24.

23 CPR, r 32.1.

24 12 octobre 1070, D. 1976, 606 Note Bénabent; JCP 1980 II, 19288, concl Franc, Note Boré Normand, 1980 Rev trim dr civ, 145.

25 Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd [1977] 478.

26 Art 16.

27 Hoechon Products Ltd v Cargill Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 404.

28 ‘The Adversarial Principle: Fairness and Efficiency’, in Zuckerman, A and Cranston, R, Reform of Civil Procedure (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 169.Google Scholar

29 See Jolowicz, JA, ‘The Woolf Report and the Adversary Process’ (1996) 15 CJQ 198.Google Scholar

30 Morel, R, Traité Elementaire de Procédure civile, 2nd edn (Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1949), no 425.Google Scholar

31 Perrot, Solus et, droit judiciare privé, III Procédure de première instance (1991) (hereafter ‘Solus et Perrot), no 344.Google Scholar

32 Art 11.

33 Art 4.

34 Art 5.

35 Art 12.

36 Motulsky, H., ‘Le rôle respectif du juge dans l'allégation de faits’, in H Motulsky, Ecrits (Paris: Dulloz, 1973), 33.Google Scholar

37 Art 6.

38 Art 7. Le juge ne peut fonder sa décision sur des faits qui ne sont pas dans le débat. Parmiles éléments du débat le juge peut prendre en considération même les faits que les parties n'auraient pas spécialement invoqués a soutien de leur prétentions.

39 Art 9.

40 Art 146.

41 Art 10.

42 Solus et Perrot, no 731.

43 Art 1.

44 CPR, Part 38.

45 Arts 394–9.

46 President of the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (court of first instance.)

47 ‘Réflexions et propositions sur la procédure civile.’ For a relatively early comment, see Garapon, A. ‘Vers une nouvelle économie politique de la justice?’, D 1997, Chron 69.Google Scholar

48 Guinchard, S, ‘L'ambition d'une justice civile rénovée’, D 1999, Chron 65, no 1.Google Scholar

49 What follows owes much to Guinchard, loc cit, n 49.

50 Art 56, as amended in 1998.

51 Art 753, as amended in 1998. For appeals see Art 954.

52 Guinchard loc cit, n 49, no 21. It may be, however, that these changes will give greater weight than heretofore to the legal submissions of the parties.

53 Arts 353 and 954. For criticism, see Bourdillat, JJ, ‘La réforme des conclusions récapitulatives on la quête du succès improbable’ D 2000 Chron 427. For the position when such conclusions récapitulatives were merely voluntary. See Solus et Perrot, Droit judiciaire privé, III (1991), no 68. The judge's task in drawing up judgements is eased by allowing performance of his duty to set out the parties’ pretensions and arguments by a simple reference to their conclusions: Art 455.Google Scholar

54 Modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits (‘MARC’).

55 Code de procédure civile (1806), Art 48.

56 Law of 9 fév. 1949.

57 Arts 127–31.

58 ‘Il entre dans la mission du juge de concilier les parties’, Art 21.

59 Arts 131-1–131-15.

60 Above 288.

61 Figures taken from Guinchard, loc cit, n 49, no 1. Despite increased productivity by the judges, the number of cases awaiting disposal multiplied by 3.5 in 20 years.

62 Above 282.

63 Above 290.