Automated report. This article was drafted by software from the sources listed below, checked automatically against them, and read by the editor, Sam Allcock, before it was published. Law Week labels every article produced this way. A person is answerable for it: if something here is wrong, write to editor@lawweek.co.uk and we will correct it on the page and say what changed.
A report commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation, and listed on the Foundation’s website on 15 October 2026, has called for a wide-ranging restructuring of the civil and administrative justice system, arguing that current arrangements are fragmented and too focused on resolving individual disputes rather than preventing future harm.
The report, written by Christopher Hodges OBE, Emeritus Professor of Justice Systems at the University of Oxford, sets out a series of recommendations intended to create what it calls a “holistic system” that delivers prevention, learning and change alongside dispute resolution. Among its proposals is the creation of a single, independent regulator for legal professionals to replace what the report describes as the existing eight frontline regulators, which would also include other professionals such as Ombudsmen. The report says it was commissioned as part of the Foundation’s Public right to justice programme, and that the views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the Foundation.
Key points
- The report proposes creating a governance authority, described as a ‘Justice Institute’ or ‘Justice Council’, comprising all stakeholders and basing decisions on data and research, to design, manage and reform the whole system.
- It recommends a single, independent regulator for legal professionals to replace the existing eight frontline regulators, also including other professionals such as Ombudsmen.
- The report calls for a comprehensive complaints landscape that produces relevant data, and a single, uncomplicated portal through which individual dispute pathways would be provided.
- It proposes sector-specific changes, including switching the NHS from a medical negligence regime to a ‘no blame’ administrative injury and care scheme, and creating an integrated pathway of ACAS, ombudsman and tribunal services for employment disputes.
- The report calls for a single database, or linked databases, organised within a single national pan-sectoral framework, citing the consumer ombudsmen system in Belgium as a model.
What the report argues
The report states that the cost of a system based only on law is too high for many people and for the state, meaning access to justice is often a mirage. It argues that other techniques such as advice and mediation are successful and cheap but not deployed effectively, and that traditional thinking has occurred in silos, with the justice system focusing on dispute resolution while regulatory systems separately focus on compliance.
The report endorses a recent description of the justice system as one of “fragmentation by design” and says civil and administrative justice systems remain undeveloped, working largely within their own siloed vacuums, such as civil justice, administrative justice, regulation, business support, and social advice and support.
The recommendations
As well as the governance authority and single regulator, the report recommends reviewing what changes are needed for each type of dispute and sector to create a holistic system of functions, including support for information and education on good behaviour, effective protection from multiple and mass harms, and mechanisms to identify problems and improve behaviour.
Other recommendations include establishing independent bodies with authority to oversee both retrospective responses such as repair, redress and compensation, and prospective or regulatory responses to prevent future harm. The report also says public sector redress processes could be more efficient and less acrimonious through a permanent compensation authority, and calls for appointing trusted data controllers able to analyse and investigate data, signals and facts, with particular implications for endowing public ombudsmen with additional powers.
Correction, 24 October 2026: an earlier version said the report was published by the Nuffield Foundation and referred to the UK’s eight legal regulators. The report says it was commissioned by the Foundation, with the views those of the author, and refers to the existing eight frontline regulators. It has been corrected.