The system is adversarial in nature, implying that the clients are each spoken to by legal professionals whose sole purpose is to further their clients case. They are there to win, not lose, so there is almost no determination to co-work. Another problem is that courts can be very complex in terms of rules and compliances. Both the High Court and County Court have their own arrangements and rules, so non-compliance can lead to a strike out in the case. This can be represented by the case Vinos v Marks and Spencer PLC (2000) where a case was struck out by the court because of the late administration of the claim (9 days).Lord Woolf’s philosophy was to avoid litigation and promote settlement between disputing parties with as less issues as possible. His report was delivered in 1995; the report was finalised and published in July 1996. Woolf envisioned a new concept for the civil justice system, and argued that any system of the civil justice must respect its principles to ensure Access to Justice. This included:• Litigation avoided where possible• Litigation being less adversarial and more co-operative • Litigation being less complex• Shortened timescale of litigation• Cost being more affordable, predictable, and more proportionate to the complexity of the case• Equality of opportunity for all• Just outcomes• Be effective, adequately resourced and organisedCase management is the most significant source of control and reliability regarding Woolf’s innovation. He perceived that control by the judiciary will bring cases to trial quickly and efficiently than leaving the case to the parties to resolve. The court is liable to follow CPR 1.4(1) and CPR 1.4(2), this means that they will need to encourage parties to co-operate with each other in conduct of proceedings, identify the issues at an early stage, encourage the use of ADR, and help parties to settle the whole or part of the case. Furthermore, under the CPR, cases must be assigned to one of the three tracks: small claims, fast track or multi-track.