Problems of using the courts

Ministry of Justice	The courts are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Court Service (HMCS). HMCS provides administration and support for the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Crown Court, the magistrates' courts, the county courts and the Probate Service. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) came into being in May 2007. It has overall responsibility for justice. It comprises the National Offender Management Service, the Office for Criminal Justice Reform and the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA). The MoJ has responsibility for the courts, sentencing, prisons, rehabilitation plus DCA policies like voting, crown dependencies, human rights, tribunals and freedom of information. Its website can be found here.
Burden of proof	The appeal court reviews the decision of the court below, it does not re-hear the case and come to a new decision. The burden of proof is on the Appellant. Appellants are frequently faced with appeal court refusing to overturn a finding of fact because the court below has seen and heard the witness and so they are unlikely to change the finding.
Limits to appeals	The result of an appeal can be for the decision of the court below to be affirmed or reversed. Often the appeal court will order a new trial.
Costs	Appeal costs can be considerable. Why should a party have to fund an appeal because of the errors of judges in courts below? Lord Denning, citing the per incuriam rule, in Broome v Cassell [1971] famously persuaded the other members of the Court of Appeal to reach a decision that was contrary to a House of Lords decision in Rookes v Barnard [1964]. This was part of a concerted campaign by Denning to give more flexibility to the Court of Appeal. Denning's decision was reversed when Broome reached the House of Lords. Denning, in one of his books, expressed regret for the approach he adopted in Broome v Cassell because the court ordered Commander Broome to pay part of the costs of the hearing in the Court of Appeal.
Case law	The Court of Appeal hears increasing numbers of appeals and this creates clarity in the law. However, in the last 10 years the government has legislated so much that the courts are correcting decisions of courts below only to find the law changing again. This might create a vast useful body of case law but the volume of cases has become unmanageable.
ADR	Whilst the whole ethos of Alternative Dispute Resolution is that it should be voluntary, the current attitude of the courts is to punish by way of cost orders a party who will not cooperate. A relevant question is "Why should a party agree to some lesser hearing when he is in the right?".