Administrative Substitution of Judicial Decision-Making: A Multi-Period Evidence Review (Restricted Report)
Bohlinger, B. (2026). Administrative Substitution of Judicial Decision-Making: A Multi-Period Evidence Review. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19840570
Github: https://github.com/BebeHub/Administrators-substitute-UK-Judges_N24Form
Overview: This report documents a systemic pattern of procedural impediment and non-compliance with rule of law standards within the Administration of Justice (2024-2026). Based on a comprehensive audit trail of contemporaneous filings and time-stamped system data, the findings highlight an absence of judicially-led processes and determinations in multiple civil and tribunal and appeal tribunal cases.
Evidence of Administrative Actions Outside Documented Judicial Authorisation: The documentation reveals that HMCTS administrative staff repeatedly produced and mischaracterised a form known as "N24 General Form", as per HMCTS public guidance a template for draft orders, as judicial decisions. Those N24 Forms were produced by named staff without documented judicial authorisation, but with express judicial attribution.
The report documents non-compliance events and actions within the CE-Filing system (also known as C-Track, developed by Thomson Reuters CM Solutions and in place in higher courts and tribunal, see E-Filing Guidance) where the record became materially inconsistent due to description changes and omissions of administrative orders by unidentified actors within the system. The system's contemporaneous log of filed descriptions and the series of audit-quality Point-in-Time captures underpin the report's findings.
The administratively produced N24 General Forms, frequently grammatically deficient and lacking legal reasoning, provided the foundation for subsequent administrative dispositive acts. The report cites multiple judicially not authorised case transfers to another court, coupled with conversion of the electronic file to paper. It cites the absence of required reasons, consent and contempornaneously filed objections remaining unconsidered. The abssence of judicial authorisation permitting a party to draw such a draft applies to all cases covered in the report, resulting in cases being transferred multiple times, held without progression, and fragmented - entailing reputational risk for the judiciary and documented procedural prejudice and detriment to the affected party.
- Selected Findings: Procedural Non-Compliance with the Legal Framework
1.1) Non-Determination of Dispositive Applications: Paid applications (N244) for Summary Judgment and Strike Out of the Defence remained judicially unprocessed for over 10 months, despite meeting all filing requirements and fee payments.
1.2) Case conversion from Electronic to Paper without Judicial Authorisation: Cases were unilaterally moved from the Money Claim Online (MCOL) system to offline paper processes without notice, directly contradicting public statements regarding court digitalisation and efficiency. Cases changed, following a complaint, to postal mail, adding a new barrier.
1.3) Accessibility and Equality Act 2010 Non-Compliance: The report refers to contemporaneous written evidence of repeated denials of Reasonable Adjustment (RA) requests (specifically for electronic communication), lacking explanation, even when the administrative staff used those same channels to communicate the denial and process the opposing party's filings.
- Structural deficiencies in Oversight and Accountability
2.1) The internal HMCTS complaint processes demonstrate dysfunction, failing to engage with evidence and showing absence of root cause analysis throughout. Complaint outcomes, where issued, consist of assertions without documented reasoning or evidence, include express apologies and ex gratia payments but fail to provide rectification and the required correction of records or progression towards judicial determination.
2.2) Escalations to senior management have, in some instances, resulted in severely adverse administrative actions. These include the loss of a filed application’s fee payment, substituted by the loss of the application per se, with complete absence of tracking for misallocated or misappropriated fees at the core of the complaint, or the deletion of "completed" applications from digital systems.
- Further Significant Procedural Findings: Severe Delays 3.1) Operational Delays: Audited money claims were pending for 53–75 weeks, significantly exceeding the 11-week completion target.
3.2) Complaint Management: Responses took 150–170 working days (against a 35-day policy), while higher-tier escalations reached 180–225 days.
Conclusion The evidence indicates that administrative actions are being substituted for judicial determinations, not only compounding but exceeding the risks identified in the UK Parliament Justice Committee’s (July 2025) characterisation of court dysfunction and the Constitution Committee’s (November 2025) warnings regarding the rule of law, thereby elevating the systemic failure to a direct and material threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
This summary is intended to provide a risk-informed and evidence-based account of the pattern of procedural irregularities documented in the report.
All findings are supported by a contemporaneous gap-free, written audit trail of official correspondence, system logs, court filings, payment receipts as well as judicial orders, judgments, and electronic document information where applicable.
Relevant detailed Ombudsman (PHSO) decisions for illustrative purposes: "HM Courts and Tribunals Service wrongly said a document was a valid court order" - Summary 87 | April 2014 https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/our-casework/how-our-casework-makes-difference/case-summaries/87
"Errors when HM Court & Tribunals Service handled a claim" - Summary 265 | August 2014 https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/our-casework/how-our-casework-makes-difference/case-summaries/265
Dataset: 10.5281/zenodo.19697776> (DOI) https://zenodo.org/records/19697776
Dataset: 10.5281/zenodo.19828688 (DOI) https://zenodo.org/records/19828688
Other: https://github.com/BebeHub/Administrators-substitute-UK-Judges_N24Form (URL)
BBC News. (2025, August 8). Courts service 'covered up' IT bug that caused evidence to go missing. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwye2q00k51o
Business and Trade Committee. (2026, March 10). Royal Mail's reliance on headline letter delivery figures can't hide service failures as 219 million letters arrive late. UK Parliament. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/365/business-and-trade-committee/news/212558/royal-mails-reliance-on-headline-letter-delivery-figures-cant-hide-service-failures-as-219-million-letters-arrive-late/
Civil Procedure Rules. (n.d.). Part 40: Judgments and orders. Ministry of Justice. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part40
Civil Procedure Rules. (n.d.). Glossary. Ministry of Justice. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/glossary
Goodwin, N. (2026, March 31). Modernising services: Nick Goodwin's reflections on change at HMCTS. HMCTS Blog. https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2026/03/31/modernising-services-nick-goodwins-reflections-on-change-at-hmcts/
HM Courts and Tribunals Service. (n.d.). About HM Courts and Tribunals Service. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about> .
HM Courts and Tribunals Service. (n.d.). Accessibility statement. Money Claims Service. https://www.moneyclaims.service.gov.uk/accessibility-statement
HM Courts and Tribunals Service. (n.d.). Complaints procedure. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/complaints-procedure
HM Courts and Tribunals Service. (n.d.). Form N24: General form of judgment or order. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n24-general-form-of-judgment-or-order
HM Courts and Tribunals Service. (n.d.). Terms and conditions. Money Claims Service. https://www.moneyclaims.service.gov.uk/terms-and-conditions
House of Commons Justice Committee. (2025, July 21). The work of the County Court (HC 677). UK Parliament. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmjust/677/report.html
House of Commons Justice Committee. (2025, October 17). Urgent review 'essential' to overhaul 'dysfunctional' County Court, Justice Committee warns. UK Parliament. https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/news/209657/urgent-review-essential-to-overhaul-dysfunctional-county-court-justice-committee-warns/
House of Lords Constitution Committee. (2025, November 20). The rule of law: Holding the line against tyranny and anarchy (HL Paper 211). UK Parliament. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/172/constitution-committee/news/210496/rule-of-law-holding-the-line-between-anarchy-and-tyranny/ .