This is a defeatist attitude, and one that allows bad actors to thrive. Landlord-Tenant law is a particularly relevant example here because most jurisdictions have substantial regulations that put substantial obligations and limitations on landlords -- far more than most other areas of contract law. However, many landlords can ignore these regulations because their tenants don't have access to courts to enforce them.
I would also argue that family law is an area that is a counter-example to your statement. In cases of divorce, especially with children involved, the courts are almost always involved, even when the parties come to an amicable separation agreement. You'll also note that the processes, personnel, and facilities of family court tend to be a lot more economical than a prototypical court of general jurisdiction. They stand as an example that if we want to make access to courts more widely available and economical, we can.
And as it turns out five minutes in front of a judge can easily handle: “The speed camera is showing a picture of a pickup truck, I drive an SUV.”
It’s only a minute fraction of cases that take significant time to resolve. The UK has ~700 homicide victims per year and significantly fewer murder trials. Individual trials can be long and expensive without it actually adding up to a significant expense.
Anyway here’s Criminal court statistics up to 2019 that’s showing real downwards trends. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Courts are extremely costly and/or low throughput. The vast majority of legal resolutions happen outside of courts, whether or not they even touch a court along the way.
It just is not designed for efficiency. Court systems are designed to embody legal ideals (and imo myths) of justice, that may be pretty far from common sense ideals.
We basically can't have a decent court system unless appealing to it is extremely rare. This is the nature of the legal system, not a consequence of details like funding.