2.Main Content
1999 Paths to Justice
This page contains an outline of this research, and a summary of the key findings. Details of how to find the full report can be found at the bottom of the page.
Title
“Paths to Justice – What People Do and Think About Going to Law”, Hart Publishing, 1999.
What is it about?
The report was based on two main questions: how often do people experience problems which might have a legal solution ('justiciable events') and how do they set about solving them? The survey concentrated on the type of civil problems that people might encounter in their everyday lives, such as family disputes, debt, and housing and employment problems.
Who did it?
The research was conducted by Professor Hazel Genn of University College London, with the National Centre for Social Research. It was funded by the Nuffield Foundation, and published November 1999.
Key findings
Around 40% of all respondents to the survey reported having experienced one or more problems during the previous five years. The types of problems most commonly experienced included money problems (9%); injuries/health problems resulting from accidents/poor working conditions (8%); owning residential property (8%); living in rented accommodation (7%); employment problems (6%); and family/relationship problems (6%).
The research also showed that problems tend to come in “clusters”. Problem types most commonly found together included employment and money problems, and accommodation and money problems.
Around 5% of all respondents failed to take any kind of action to deal with their problem. Those people who fall within the commonly understood definitions of socially excluded are the ones least likely to take any action and seek help to resolve their problems. The “lumpers” represented 4% of the total and took no action at all. The “self-helpers” represented 60% and dealt with the matter themselves. The remainder were “advice seekers” and went to a CAB, solicitor, Trading Standards or other source of advice.
One of Genn’s conclusions is that the type of person as well as the type of problem is a factor to consider when deciding what approach to take in resolving a legal problem. This highlights that where there is a choice of route to resolution, the decision is complex and cannot simply rely on the nature of the issue in dispute.
The study points to a number of reasons why there is low take-up of ADR: “Current ADR activity in the context of civil and family disputes, appears to be negligible. The reasons for this are lack of knowledge about ADR services among the general public and to some extent among advisers and the legal profession; suspicion about what is a relatively new development in this country; and also principled objections to the compromise of legal rights and entitlements.”
Key websites
End of Section Back to top