Written by Justice reform
Digital justice is no longer a future proposal. It is now embedded across civil claims, divorce, probate, tribunals and parts of criminal case management. The question is not whether courts should modernise. They should. The harder question is whether online systems improve access to justice for ordinary users, or simply move complexity from paper into portals.
Publication snapshot
- HMCTS says its reform programme ran between 2016 and March 2025 and launched 14 digital services across court and tribunal jurisdictions.
- Online Civil Money Claims is one of the clearest examples of digital dispute resolution, with more than 472,000 claims issued by unrepresented claimants since March 2018.
- Digital services can improve access through clearer forms, 24/7 access, case tracking, faster information transfer and reduced paper handling.
- The main access risks are digital exclusion, loss of human support, technical failure, data protection, automated process design and unequal user confidence.
- The future test is practical fairness: can a litigant understand the system, use it, recover from mistakes and obtain human support where needed?
Why this matters
The courts and tribunals are moving from paper-heavy processes towards digital services. For many users, that can be a real improvement. Online forms can be clearer. Status updates can be easier to track. Documents can move faster. Some disputes may settle without a hearing.
But digital justice must be judged by more than speed. A justice system can be efficient and still be hard to use. It can be modern and still exclude people who lack confidence, equipment, language support, disability adjustments, private space or reliable internet access.
The practical point: online justice works only if the system is accessible to the people who need it most, not only to those who are already digitally confident.
What ODR really means
Online Dispute Resolution is often used loosely. In its narrower sense, it means using online tools to help resolve disputes: filing a claim, responding, negotiating, mediating, narrowing issues, uploading evidence or reaching settlement without a conventional hearing.
Not every digital court service is ODR. Some services are digital case-management systems, filing portals, tribunal appeal systems or criminal administrative platforms. They still matter, because they shape how people experience justice. But the distinction matters: digitising a process is not the same thing as resolving a dispute fairly.
Digital access
Forms, portals, uploads, payments, case tracking, notifications and online status updates.
Online resolution
Tools that help parties resolve or narrow disputes through online negotiation, mediation or structured decision pathways.
Justice safeguard
Human support, paper alternatives, reasonable adjustments, review routes and clear explanations when the digital route fails.
The current state of reform
HMCTS now describes the reform programme as having run between 2016 and March 2025. It says the programme launched 14 digital services across all jurisdictions and processed more than 4.1 million digitally submitted cases since April 2019.
The direction of travel is clear. Digital services now operate across civil money claims, divorce, probate, social security appeals, immigration and asylum, employment tribunals, criminal case management and the Single Justice Procedure.
Online Civil Money Claims is the most obviously dispute-resolution-focused example. HMCTS says the service issued more than 472,000 claims from unrepresented claimants since March 2018, issued 105,509 claims in 2023, and achieved average user satisfaction of 95% for claimants and 66% for defendants.
Potential benefits
Digital services can make legal processes less intimidating where they are designed well. The best digital services reduce jargon, allow users to save and return, show progress, provide prompts, reduce duplicated data entry and make it easier to understand what happens next.
Access from anywhere
Users may be able to complete forms, upload evidence or check case progress without travelling to a court or tribunal building.
Clearer process
Good digital design can break complex procedures into smaller steps and reduce avoidable form errors.
Faster information transfer
In some tribunal systems, information can be transferred between departments much faster than under paper processes.
Less paper
Digital files can reduce paper use, postal delays, manual handling and repeated data entry.
The probate and divorce case studies show the access promise clearly. HMCTS describes online divorce as offering 24/7 access, status tracking, step-by-step guidance and digital uptake rising from 22% in 2020 to 94% in 2024. For probate, HMCTS says more than 1 million digital applications have been received since 2019, with digital applications rising from 17% in financial year 2019/20 to 80% between April and December 2024.
Risks and safeguards
Digital justice creates new safeguards, but also new risks. A paper process can be slow and inaccessible. A digital process can be fast and still unfair if users cannot understand it, access it or challenge errors within it.
Digital exclusion
Some users lack devices, broadband, confidence, literacy, language support, private space or disability adjustments.
Technical failure
Portal errors, upload problems, missed notifications or login issues can create procedural consequences.
Loss of human judgement
Structured online processes can make routine cases easier, but unusual cases may need human explanation and discretion.
Data and privacy risk
Digital justice depends on secure handling of sensitive personal, financial, family, health, immigration and criminal-case information.
The key distinction
A digital service is not fair because it exists online. It is fair only if people can use it effectively, understand its consequences and obtain support when the process breaks down.
Impact on litigants in person
For litigants in person, online services can cut both ways. They may reduce the intimidation of attending court, make applications easier to start, allow progress tracking and remove some paper barriers. But they can also leave people trying to solve legal, procedural and technical problems at the same time.
This is especially important where the other side has legal representation. A solicitor or claims handler may use portals routinely. A litigant in person may be using the system for the first time, under deadline pressure, while dealing with the emotional consequences of the dispute.
Can the user understand the task?
Ask: does the system explain what is being filed, why it matters and what happens next?
Can the user correct a mistake?
Ask: is there a clear route to fix an upload, amend information or explain a problem?
Can the user obtain help?
Ask: is support available by phone, webchat, paper route or assisted digital appointment?
Can the user challenge unfairness?
Ask: is there a human review route where the system itself has caused difficulty?
Digital support
HMCTS says it offers a free digital support service for users across England, Wales and Scotland who are unable or struggling to access online services. Support is described as being available through face-to-face community and advice centres, such as Citizens Advice and law centres, and through remote sessions.
That support is not an optional extra. It is a core safeguard. Where the state moves justice online, it must also preserve routes for people who cannot participate online without help.
Assisted digital
Support for people who need help using online services, including in-person and remote assistance.
Paper fallback
Some services preserve or modernise paper routes for users who cannot use online services effectively.
Service centres
Centralised service teams can help users understand status, process and next steps where the digital route is unclear.
The future test
The next phase of digital justice should be judged by user outcomes, not just case volumes. It is not enough to count how many cases enter a digital service. The access-to-justice test is whether the person using the system can understand the process, present their case, correct errors, obtain support and trust the outcome.
That is especially important if future systems use more automation, triage or AI-assisted tools. Efficiency gains must not come at the cost of transparency, explainability or human review. The system must remain capable of recognising vulnerability, complexity and exception.
Design for ordinary users
Use plain language, visible steps, save-and-return functions, progress tracking and clear consequences.
Protect non-digital users
Maintain assisted digital, paper routes, telephone support and reasonable adjustments.
Build in review
Where a digital process fails, users need a human route to explain what happened and seek correction.
Measure fairness
Track who uses the service, who drops out, who needs support and whether outcomes differ across user groups.
Source anchors
These sources help readers separate HMCTS reform figures, ODR examples, family/probate services, tribunal digitisation and assisted-digital support:
- HMCTS: Modernising courts and tribunals — benefits of digital services — official summary of the reform programme, 14 digital services and digitally submitted cases.
- HMCTS: Online Civil Money Claims fact sheet — official OCMC figures, mediation, user satisfaction and timeliness data.
- HMCTS: From paper to digital — online divorce case study — official case study on the digital divorce service.
- HMCTS: Modernising probate — official case study on online probate, digital applications and support routes.
- HMCTS: Social Security and Child Support tribunals digital appeals — official case study on online appeals, tracking and digital information transfer.
- HMCTS: Immigration and asylum appeals digital service — official case study on online appeals, plain English design, tracking and paper fallback.
Closing point
Online dispute resolution and digital court services can make justice faster, clearer and more accessible. But modernisation must not become a substitute for fairness. A digital justice system should help people understand and resolve disputes. It should not leave them excluded, confused or penalised because the process has moved from paper to screen.
Legal Lens decision support
Struggling with an online court or tribunal process?
If a digital service, upload problem, online claim, appeal portal, notification gap or support issue is affecting your case, the next step should be structured. A focused review can separate technical difficulty from procedural risk.
What the assessment can organise
Legal Lens can help build a practical digital-process map: the service used, the task attempted, the error or barrier, the deadline affected, the evidence available and the next proportionate step.
Best for
Litigants in person, claimants, appellants and users dealing with online court or tribunal barriers.
What you get
A structured issue map showing what happened, what evidence supports it and what needs clarifying.
Practical output
A clearer route for response: chronology, support request, correction request, adjournment explanation or next-step checklist.
Independent Legal Lens consultancy. This is not a regulated solicitors’ firm. A preliminary assessment is decision support designed to help you organise the documents, issues and next step, and is not a substitute for regulated legal advice where that is needed.