The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in England and Wales is the main source of funding for the UK judiciary because a significant part of the national justice system funding in England and Wales allocated to courts, tribunals, and judicial wages is financed by it. This financing is dictated by the departmental budget process, and incorporates future Spending Reviews, which in turn are normally part of the larger government spending. Even though there have been concerns in the past about the possible threats that may be posed to the independence of the judiciary by the funding arrangements, especially to the Supreme Court, the funding mechanism is intended to deliver effective and efficient justice, and hopefully be devoid of unwanted political influence.
The importance of judicial funding
Independent and accountable judiciaries are needed to have high-quality, effective, and efficient justice systems, which is also needed with a functioning EU judicial system. As it stipulates the conditions under which the judiciary and the judges perform their functions, proper funding of the judiciary is fundamental in the guarantee and protection of the freedom of the judiciary and the judges. The budget division and the management of these funds, both at the local and national levels, are all elements of the funding of the judiciary.
The legal system of the United Kingdom includes the judicial part, which is a vital part of the legal system. It is responsible for putting into practice and interpreting the legislation. The judges in the UK are selected on the basis of experience and law familiarity. They decide according to the law, and are non-partisan and autonomous.
Overview of the UK Judicial System
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the UK’s hierarchical judicial system and the country’s last court of appeal. It has a system of lower courts (County Courts, Magistrates’ Courts) that deal with progressively simpler cases and higher courts (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court). The Ministry of Justice in England and Wales is in charge of funding and running the system, which is in charge of unbiasedly resolving disputes by using legislation passed by Parliament and established legal precedents.
Local and royal government worked together to administer justice during the Anglo-Saxon era, and even after the Norman invasion in 1066. A lord or one of his stewards presided over local courts, but the King himself presided over the Curia Regis, the King’s court, at least initially. The “trial by ordeal” method was used to decide guilt or innocence in criminal trials until the end of the 12th century. The accused would go through a hazardous and agonizing “ordeal” under this method. They could have to remove a stone from a boiling water pot, pick up a red-hot iron rod, or do something just as agonizing.
Water was another really popular ordeal. After being bound, the accused would be tossed into a lake or other body of water. They were supposed to sink if they were innocent. It is unknown how many “not guilty” verdicts were rendered under the “trial by ordeal” system. Trial by ordeal was eventually outlawed by William II (1087–1100), allegedly because 50 men who were charged with killing his deer had passed the test. The Church also denounced it in 1216.
Who Provides Funding for the Judiciary?
One of the major responsibilities is the justice system, as it is a critical factor in the enforcement of the law and maintenance of order by the government. Most of the work of the justice system in England and Wales, such as the courts and tribunals system, the judges, prisons, the probation service, and legal aid, is financed and administered by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office are separate non-ministerial departments, and the police are not listed on the work of the department (this is a function of the Home Office), although expenditure by the MoJ may be informally considered as expenditure on the English and Welsh legal system.
The justice system constitutes a significant area of responsibility because it is an important factor in the way the government applies the law and maintains order in the population. Most of the activities of the justice system in England and Wales, such as the courts and tribunals system, the judges, prisons, the probation service, and legal aid, are funded and administered by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). The MoJ has an approximate of 90,000 full-time equivalent employees (where different agencies are considered). The Magistrates’ courts alone have well more than a million cases each year, and another million judgments are made in the civil courts. England and Wales have just under 90,000 prisoners, and almost a quarter of a million persons are under the supervision of the probation service. Despite the fact that the department is not among the largest in Whitehall, it possesses a large footprint.
Judicial salaries and associated costs
In the UK, there are various salary categories for judges, each of which corresponds to a distinct judicial job and function. The judge salaries of the lower court posts, such as a district judge, are between an estimated £110826 and to estimated £266555 of the Lords and Ladies Justices of Appeal. As much as maintaining fairness and consistency in the offices of the courts, the pay system is meant to attract and retain talented legal professionals.
The entire judicial compensation package comprises the basic salaries, in addition to the associated costs, such as pensions, allowances, and benefits. The budget that should be allocated to judicial compensation is managed by the Ministry of Justice and entails these other costs.
To make sure that judicial wages are still competitive and represent the duties of judicial office, the government examines them regularly. In order to address shortages, proposals for more flexible pay models and targeted increases have been inspired by issues like recruiting and retaining judges, especially for subordinate courts.
Third-party litigation funding and its regulation
In the UK, third-party litigation finance (TPLF) is a developing field that will be the focus of much regulatory attention in 2025. Through TPLF, third-party funders give litigants in court financial help in return for a portion of any damages that are granted. By allowing parties who are unable to pay for legal fees up front to pursue claims, this funding approach contributes to greater access to justice.
In the UK, TPLF currently functions primarily within a self-regulatory structure. However, substantial revisions are being suggested to establish a formal, all-encompassing statutory regulatory structure after a thorough assessment by the Civil Justice Council (CJC). The 2025 Final Report of the CJC emphasizes the necessity of light-touch regulation, which includes capital sufficiency requirements for funders, anti-money laundering inspections, required disclosure of funding arrangements, and conflict of interest regulations.
A 2023 Supreme Court decision (the PACCAR case) that categorized lawsuit funding agreements as unenforceable damages-based agreements and caused legal ambiguity should also be overturned, according to the CJC. The regulatory landscape for litigants and litigation funders would be stabilized and clarified by new legislation. When financing is given to consumers or for collective/group litigation, additional regulatory protections are suggested. These include requirements for increased openness, independent legal advice for sponsored parties, and consumer duty obligations.
Recent funding commitments and challenges
The UK courts have recently been addressed by the promise of the budget on the historical issues of court delays and access to justice. In 2024 and 2025, the government has allocated record sums of money in investments in the court system and made enormous investments in technology, infrastructure, and more judges to address the backlog of cases. These are promises that are designed to improve the court and its operations, cut the waiting time, and shorten the period of administering justice.
Even with these good financial decisions, problems still exist. The speed of modernization and hiring initiatives is still constrained by financial limitations. Resources are also strained by the changing legal environment, which includes complicated litigation and heightened demands on the courts. The delivery of legal aid is also impacted by budgetary constraints, which affect people’s capacity to obtain appropriate legal counsel.
The Civil Justice Council (CJC) made significant regulatory evaluations and suggestions regarding third-party litigation funding in 2025. In order to improve openness, equity, and consumer protection, the CJC’s final report recommends a statutory framework for litigation funding in place of the UK’s self-regulatory system. The way litigation is financed in the UK is anticipated to be further impacted by this regulatory reform, which is anticipated to stabilize costs for litigants and clarify the funding market.
Comparing Judiciary funding to other public services
Compared to other public services, the UK’s judiciary, which is largely run by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), has had both recent gains and large decreases in budget. Daily justice spending decreased by roughly one-third in actual terms between 2007–2008 and 2016–17. Even with a recent surge in investment, daily spending in 2025–2026 is still about 14% less than in 2007–2008, and it is 24% less per person when population growth is taken into account.
Significant government efforts to upgrade court facilities and clear operational backlogs are reflected in the notable more than threefold increase in capital funding for the justice system since 2019. Even though MoJ’s capital budget has grown faster than many other departments, its daily spending still falls short of spending in key areas like education and health.
Spending for justice has been somewhat prioritized beginning 2019, after years of being deprioritized in comparison to other departments. For instance, compared to the MoJ’s £2 billion anticipated capital spending in 2025–2026, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education have far bigger capital budgets of £13.6 billion and £6.7 billion, respectively. With estimates indicating possible real-term cuts for vulnerable budgets like the MoJ, when weighed against “protected” areas like the NHS and defense, the future of funding for the judicial system is questionable. Compared to other public sectors, this presents continuous challenges for preserving and enhancing judicial services.
The channels of recourse available to harmed parties expanded along with the judiciary and the independence that accompanied it. Although the common law system was a step in the right direction, it was nevertheless cumbersome, extremely complex, and susceptible to corruption, particularly when civil juries were employed.
