Unlocking Access to Justice: The Role of Monetary, Time, and Emotional Costs in Pakistan’s Litigation System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54938/ijemdss.2026.05.5.838Keywords:
Access to justice, monetary cost, time cost, emotional cost, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, informational justice, quality of outcome, PLS-SEM, Pakistan, Lahore High CourtAbstract
It is widely believed of people both in transitional and developing nation state that official justice system is extremely expensive. The assumption of high cost and delay related with the jurisdiction prohibitive huge amount of individuals to approach courts to attain justice and originates legal uncertainty. This research analyzes the barriers that confronts to the user of justice and identified these barriers as cost. The analysis of the cost of access to justice is from the user perspective and how they experienced and evaluate the quality of official justice procedure and its outcome. A framework is designed to measure the cost of access to justice that further divided into three categories which are monetary cost, time cost and emotional cost. The cross-section survey is conducted for data collection and at the same time user's perception on the quality of the procedure and outcome from Lahore High Court. The data collected from the people who experienced the judicial system to resolve their conflict. For this purpose, property and financial cases taken into account. The survey questionnaire is filled from 100 litigants. Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling. Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) is used to measure Access to Justice (ACJ) and its determinants as constructs. Moreover, bootstrapping is used to estimate Access to Justice through its determinants. Except informational Justice (INFJ), all constructs significantly contribute to evaluating access to justice (ACJ). Emotional cost (EMC) identified as the major predictor of ACJ. The results also show direct and indirect effects of Interpersonal Justice (IPJ), Monetary Cost (MC), Time Cost (TC), and Quality of Outcome (QOU). People regard procedure and outcome fair if they receive favorable judgment. The cost of access to justice is linked to the value that people forgo, when they don’t receive timely and affordable justice.
Downloads
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
Barendrecht, J. M., Kamminga, Y. P., & Verdonschot, J. H. (2008). Priorities for the justice system. Citeseer. [suspicious link removed]
Barendrecht, M., Mulder, J., & Giesen, I. (2006). How to measure the price and quality of access to justice? (SSRN Working Paper No. 949209). SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.949209
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. [suspicious link removed]
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Fawad, M., Batool, A., Liaqat, S., & Khan, I. H. (2025). Title of article missing in source. Pakistan Journal of Economic Studies, 8(4), 255–278.
Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3
Genn, H., & Beinart, S. (1999). Paths to justice: What people do and think about going to law. Hart Publishing.
George, J. P. (2006). Access to justice, costs, and legal aid. American Journal of Comparative Law, 54, 293–316. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/amcomp54§ion=51
Gramatikov, M. (2007). Methodological challenges in measuring cost and quality of access to justice (SSRN Working Paper No. 1099392). SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1099392
Gramatikov, M. (2009). A framework for measuring the costs of paths to justice. Journal Jurisprudence, 2(1), 111–147. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jnljur2&id=111
Gramatikov, M. (2010). A handbook for measuring the costs and quality of access to justice. Maklu.
Gramatikov, M., Barendrecht, M., & Verdonschot, J. H. (2008). Measuring the costs and quality of paths to justice: Contours of a methodology (TISCO Working Paper Series on Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems No. 004/2008). SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1269328
Gramatikov, M., & Klaming, L. (2009). Justice as experienced by the user: A study of the costs and quality of a path to justice in The Netherlands (SSRN Working Paper No. 1118311). SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1118311
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Klaming, L., & Giesen, I. (2008). Access to justice: The quality of the procedure (TISCO Working Paper Series on Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems No. 002/2008). SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1091105
Kritzer, H. M., Sarat, A., Trubek, D. M., Bumiller, K., & McNichol, E. (1984). Understanding the costs of litigation: The case of the hourly-fee lawyer. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 9(3), 559–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1984.tb00020.x
Landoni, M. (2007). Justice delayed: An overview of the option to speed up federal justice. Journal of Public & International Affairs, 18, 141–160.
Miller, T. R., Fisher, D. A., & Cohen, M. A. (2001). Costs of juvenile violence: Policy implications. Pediatrics, 107(1), Article e3. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.107.1.e3
Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2004). Time and punishment: Delayed consequences and criminal behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(4), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-004-5866-1
Privato, S. (2000). A comparative perspective on the crisis of the civil justice and on its possible remedies. Diritto e Processo Civile, 2000. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5282472
Shavell, S. (1999). The level of litigation: Private versus social optimality of suit and of settlement. International Review of Law and Economics, 19(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188(98)00026-X
Siddique, O. (2010). Pakistan’s experience with formal law: An alien justice. In Pakistan’s experience with formal law: An alien justice (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139814508
Siddique, O. (2011). Approaches to legal and judicial reform in Pakistan: Post colonial inertia and the paucity of imagination in times of turmoil and change. Development Policy Research Center, Lahore University of Management Sciences. http://dprc.lums.edu.pk
Silver, C. M. (2005). Does civil justice cost too much? (SSRN Working Paper No. 314964). SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.314964
Trubek, D. M., Sarat, A., Felstiner, W. L. F., Kritzer, H. M., & Grossman, J. B. (1984). The costs of ordinary litigation. UCLA Law Review, 31, 72–127. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/uclalr31&id=88
Tyler, T. R. (1996). The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure? Social Justice Research, 9(4), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02196988
Van Den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1034
Wenzel, M. (2006). A letter from the tax office: Compliance effects of informational and interpersonal justice. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0017-0
Winkler, W. K. (2007). Civil justice reform: The Toronto experience. Ottawa Law Review, 39(1), 103–120. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ottlr39&id=103
Yew Kok, G. C. (2008). Access to justice for the poor: The Singapore judiciary at work. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 17(3), 595–648. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol17/iss3/3
Zuckerman, A. A. S. (1995). A reform of civil procedure: Rationing procedure rather than access to justice. Journal of Law and Society, 22(2), 155–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1410402
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Zunaira Ahmed , Azma Batool
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Under the Creative Common Attribution (CC-BY 4.0) license, authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
