This thesis discovers that a form of caseflow management was practised by Official Referees in England more than 70 years before the Woolf reforms. It also describes an innovative concept of judicial sponsorship of settlement at an early interlocutory stage. For its time it was revolutionary. Such process created a distinct subordinate judicial culture which promoted economy and expedition in the management of complex technical cases. This culture was facilitated by the referees' subordinate function as officers of the High Court and the type of casework undertaken. The essential elements of my theory of rudimentary micro caseflow management emerge from a study of the methods used by Sir Francis Newbolt K.C. These are analysed and discussed by way of a literature review, qualitative and quantitative analysis. I conclude that this form of rudimentary caseflow management and judicial settlement process made the court more efficient. This process, identified as Newbolt's "Scheme," is traced from its inception through the judicial activities of Newbolt and other referees who followed this approach whether actively or passively. Having traced the origin and reasons for such officers this study considers the senior and subordinate judicial figures involved, their influence and encouragement as to the employment of innovative interlocutory techniques. Contemporaneous records including reports and correspondence are analysed in considering these innovations. The analysis is supported by the results of a quantitative study of Judicial Statistics between 1919 and 1970 and other contemporaneous judicial records including the referees' notebooks and judicial time records known as Minute Books. A number of conclusions are drawn which suggest a correlation between such techniques and levels of efficiency providing an interesting comparison for those interested in wider questions of civil justice reform.

The Legal Services Act 2007 brings about radical changes to both the regulatory structure of the legal profession in England and Wales and the way in which legal services can be provided to clients. For nearly 40 years successive Governments sought to bring about changes to the regulation of the legal profession. Changes were achieved with only limited success. Following an Office of Fair Trading report in 2001 and a Government consultation titled 'In the Public Interest?' in 2002, the legal profession was given the time and opportunity to bring about changes themselves. With the advent of Lord Falconer as Lord Chancellor, a major review of legal services was announced in 2003. The report on the review produced by Sir David Clementi was used as the basis for a Government White Paper which, contrary to the 2002 ‘In the Public Interest?' consultation, made no reference to the public interest. Following this White Paper a Draft Legal Services Bill was presented to Parliament in 2006. It made no reference to the public interest. The absence of any reference to the 'public interest' was identified when the Draft Bill received pre- legislative scrutiny by a Joint Select Committee. Reacting to the Committee's report, the Government included three references to the public interest in the Bill presented to Parliament for debate. These limited and discrete references to the public interest were not accepted as satisfactory by the House of Lords and the marginalisation of the public interest fuelled a prolonged debate. Calls were made for the public interest to be included as a regulatory objective of the legislation. These calls were sustained by the Government's very public commitment to the consumer interest. The Government eventually conceded and a regulatory objective of 'protecting and promoting the public interest' was inserted into the legislation. This thesis examines the inclusion of the regulatory objective of 'protecting and promoting the public interest' in an attempt to discover whether, in the hands of regulators, it is capable of realising the legislative intention which underpinned its inclusion in the Legal Services Act 2007. It examines the term 'public interest' and how it is difficult both to define and to integrate it into decision making processes. Difficulties experienced by regulators are considered. A range of public interest theories are examined. It is argued that one public interest theory presents an opportunity to overcome some of the difficulties associated with understanding the public interest. It is suggested that this particular theory, coupled with a proposed methodology for its integration into policy and regulatory decision making processes, enables the regulatory objective of ‘protecting and promoting the public interest' to more systematically and realistically achieve the legislative intention which underpinned its insertion in the Legal Services Act 2007.

Cases that reach the Supreme Court are ‘hard cases’ where the result is not clearly dictated by statute or precedent. To reach a decision in these cases, a judge must exercise discretion and the non-legal factors that influence discretion have been the subject of extensive debate. Theoretical and empirical studies examining the influences on judicial discretion have focused on demographic characteristics and facets of the judicial personality including political ideology and attitudes. Personal values are related to these factors and have been demonstrated to play a role in decision making. This thesis demonstrates a relationship between personal values and judicial decision making in the Supreme Court. This thesis translates theories and techniques used in psychological research to examine the role of personal values in judicial decision making. A novel method of assessment of value expression in judgments was developed. This method revealed a different pattern of values expressed in the majority and minority judgments of cases that divided the Supreme Court, demonstrating a relationship between values and judicial decisions (value: decision paradigm). This was confirmed by an empirical study of legal academics. Drawing on this novel method, a series of Supreme Court cases were analysed to develop a theory of discretion, division, uncertainty, and values, suggesting that the influence of values is mediated through largely subconscious instinctive responses in cases where the outcome is perceived as uncertain. The role of values has significant implications in the debates surrounding judicial diversity, which have centred on overt characteristics, how the judiciary are seen. The study of judicial values has revealed tacit diversity in the Supreme Court which is associated with judicial decision making. The value: decision paradigm provides a new framework to analyse judicial decision making, judicial division, and the exercise of judicial discretion and the subconscious influences on these processes.