Longitudinal Collection of UK County Court Daily Hearing Lists

Purpose and Global Accessibility This project provides an independent archive to support Access to Justice for the public, including researchers, NGOs, and the growing number of self-represented parties, i.e. Litigants in Person (LIPs) also known as pro-se litigants, globally. By offering this data in a machine-readable format (pipe-separated, fixed width) with comparative terminology, the project ensures that practices, patterns and allocation of time in County Courts remain in the public domain and inform applications, decision-making processes and related complaints processes, as well as appeals or actions required to address irregularities. Governance and Funding The research project has been independently conceived, designed, and executed, including all necessary personal funding for data acquisition and processing. The project maintains full autonomy over the research agenda, data interpretation, and final outputs. Human-AI Collaborative Framework To ensure methodological rigour and reduce potential cognitive bias, a hybrid workflow integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) alongside traditional data analysis tools was employed. This collaboration was structured as an iterative, Agile-based review cycle, where AI assisted in: Data Aggregation: Consolidating raw listings from multiple County Courts, including Central London, Wandsworth, and Clerkenwell & Shoreditch into standardised, fixed-width plain text tables. Trend Identification: Recognising longitudinal patterns, such as the regular bi-monthly processing of "Restored Name" applications and the consistency of "HMRC Petitions" peaks. Verification: Cross-referencing AI-generated subtotals against source records to ensure accuracy in unique case reference counts and hearing channel classifications (e.g., In Person, CVP / MS Teams, Telephone, and On the Papers). By consolidating data from July 2025 through April 2026, this archive serves as a public resource for researchers, litigants, NGOs and other parties globally. Case management patterns vary, depending on the allocated track (based on case value in £/GBP) and judicial allocation of time. Judicial determinations "On the Papers" permit maximum flexibility as they do not require parties in attendance. The dataset makes this granular, anonymised data transparent and searchable beyond the fragmented official portals which override daily listings. Disclaimer: The comparative legal terminology provided here, and all other information within this dataset and research project, is for archival and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, legal strategy, or financial advice. Methodology: This dataset consists of data extracted and synthesised from official UK County Court Daily Hearing / Cause Lists (July 2025 – April 2026). The primary source data are not included in this repository to respect the terms of the original listing services. The data has been transformed into a structured format to facilitate longitudinal analysis of hearing types, and the use of remote hearing channels including video, telephone and on the papers. Distinct Entities: It distinguishes between the total number of entries and the number of specific, separate categories. For instance, while there are hundreds of individual hearings, they only occupy five unique channels, i.e. In person, MS Teams / CVP, On the Papers, and Telephone. Methodological Rigour: Using "unique" ensures counting of discrete variables rather than raw instances. The sources themselves adopt this terminology, specifically defining "Count" as the total number of "unique case reference numbers" to avoid double-counting the same legal matter in aggregated summaries. Longitudinal Accuracy: Across the various date ranges - from July 2025 through April 2026 - certain courts or types appear repeatedly. Identifying the unique count (e.g., six courts) provides exactly how many distinct venues are being monitored regardless of how many times they appear in the data. Technical specification Standardised `.txt` File Format Specification to ensure the dataset is machine-readable and archival-grade. Structural rules applied: 1. Fixed-Width Layout - Structure: Uses a fixed-width plain text table where each column has a consistent character count. - Separator: Uses the pipe symbol (`|`) between headers and data columns to facilitate future conversion to CSV or database formats. - Headers: Uses exactly these six column headers: `DATE | COURT NAME | HEARING TYPE | CATEGORY | CHANNEL | COUNT` 2. Column Definitions - DATE: DD/MM/YYYY. - COURT NAME: The full name of the court (e.g., Central London, Wandsworth). - HEARING TYPE: The primary description of the hearing (e.g., Application, Trial). - CATEGORY: The bracketed legal classification found in the source (e.g., [PCOL], [Small Claim]). Uses `[N/A]` if not present. - CHANNEL: The mode of appearance (e.g., In person, MS Teams / CVP [Cloud Video Platform], On the Papers). - COUNT: The total number of unique case reference numbers listed for that specific row profile. 3. Privacy and Anonymisation - No Personal Data: Removed were all names of Judges, District Judges, Clerks, Ushers, and Parties. - Data Aggregation: Only includes counts of cases per hearing profile; does not list individual case names or numbers. 4. Asterisked Comments (Footer) Qualitative administrative metadata that does not fit into the table has been placed at the bottom of the file using a single or double asterisk system (**) ### **Standardized Template** ```text DATE | COURT NAME | HEARING TYPE | CATEGORY | CHANNEL | COUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DD/MM/YYYY | [Full Court Name] | [Type of Hearing] | [Tag] | [In person/Remote]| 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL FOR DATE 0 * [Comment regarding specific administrative list or venue] ** [Comment regarding specific officer or listing anomaly]