Everyone ready for the Jackson reforms?

I was talking to a solicitor on Friday and was more than a little surprised to find out he had not yet read the proposed changes to CPR, was not aware of the fact that if you actually are entitled to a detailed assessment, you may get to the end and then have a load more knocked off for good measure, and that you were to be obliged to do a budget in multi track cases?

Is all this news to you too?

Get in touch and we can help you and your legal practice get up to speed.


Commercial Settlements -v- Reasonable Settlements

I was recently asked to negotiate costs on behalf of a landowner who offered to pay me in bales of hay, and was prepared to pay the receiving party in the same manner. Such is the economic climate.

It is not always sensible to push for the settlement you believe your costs deserve. I was once asked to attend an assessment hearing as an agent. My client was legally aided but had failed to file the appropriate statement in order to protect himself. We offered to settle for £10k with payments in instalments. My opponent chose to push for £13k which his bill was worth. However, even though the bill was assessed at £13k, they ended up with £10k including costs of assessment secured with a charging order in case the decaying property were miraculously restored. My client was delighted – in stark contrast to my opponent who had to advise his client that he effectively had nothing, losing £10k cash and gaining a worthless charging order.

The moral of the tale is your legal costs may be worth more than you sometimes have to accept, particularly where the other side is self-funding the payments.

MPs Response

‘Respiratory industrial disease is a terrible problem, and the government wants to see sufferers able to claim compensation at the earliest possible opportunity.
The MOJ is therefore working closely with the DWP to help mesothelioma sufferers who are unable to trace their employers’ insurer. The government hopes to be in a position to make an announcement on this before the summer recess’.

All good so far from my local MP in response to my nice lobbying over LASPO.

‘The no-win no-fee reforms….are simply about reducing the exorbitant fees lawyers are able to charge in these sort of cases. They will not reduce access to justice’.

Correct – but what about all the other types of claims?

‘General damages will be increased by 10% and there will be a cap of 25% on the amount of general damages that may be taken as a success fee.

No special damages can be taken as a success fee.

In PI claims a system of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting will be introduced

Legal costs will still be paid by (sic) the winning side

As the scheme stands the government would expect lawyers to consider carefully whether it is in the best interests of the client for them to claim the full 25% as a success fee.’

So claimants are not allowed to recover additional liabilities, there is no mechanism in place for QOWCS and the winner pays! Likewise, no sign of how they are going to implement the 10% increase in damages.

As for the allegation that solicitors charge exorbitant fees – it was the government of the day who introduced the scheme and scrapped legal aid. Who pays for the investigation of unsuccessful cases?

With the governments track record of implementing new systems (e-system at the Rolls Building?), the statement that the extension to the RTA portal will not be possible before April 2013….. The list of failures is getting longer by the day. And let’s not forget Prof Regan predicting other aspects unravelling. The show continues!

The Jackson Juggernaut

As the Jackson Juggernaut rumbles on towards April 2013, things are slowly becoming clearer.

Vinnie Jones as the Juggernaut in X-Men: The L...

Lord Jackson's Juggernaut

The House of Commons have overturned the amendments to LASPO Bill affecting cases involving children and industrial diseases. The pilot scheme involving budgeting/costs management in Birmingham has been a success. The pilot scheme involving provisional assessment has also allegedly been successful, but one practitioner stated that it was only successful if you were a Claimant! How can that be a resounding success?

For those unfamiliar with the pilot provisional assessment scheme, District Judge Hill, sitting in Leeds and Scarborough County Court has been busy provisionally assessing bills of costs where base costs claimed are below £25,000. Either party can seek an audience with the Judge to say he is wrong, but failure to improve ones position by 20% means costs penalties. It apparently takes the DJ an average of 37 minutes to conduct his assessment, but this is the judge that told me all detailed assessments only need 2 hours and if it doesn’t finish in that time, you know which side he is favouring and so you can sort it out outside. Cheers!

It is expected that this scheme will be rolled out to all courts, so you are then left with the risk of having my favourite judge of recent times who told me he doesn’t like to interfere with the time claimed as no solicitors have time to waste – I managed to persuade him that he was not necessarily wasting time but pondering too long.

The assessment will be based on shorter or more succinct points of dispute and replies are only to be done where it adds something to the equation (or concedes something). I am all for better points of dispute. Countless examples of cut and paste points have passed over my desk over the years. The lastest are 120 pages to a 40 page bill that repeat the same paragraphs on every page. Conduct will be raised as an issue! But if points have to be shorter can we make the point sufficiently for a judge to interpret for the purpose of provisional assessment – particularly when they are untrained/out of date/opinionated/prejudiced etc… As for the replies, these have always been optional and Master Hurst has long advocated they should only be done if they add something so why reinvent the wheel – to stop some courts that have a practice direction ordering there production? So this surely comes back to educating judges, or having some continuity between courts. But where is the fun in that!

Simple solution for all of LJ Jackson’s gripes – enlist the help of costs lawyers! After all solicitors have been doing it as have high court bailiffs, and nobody should argue with them.

What Solicitor’s should have been told at university

When I attended university all those years ago, I learnt a lot. Some was relevant, but not all. When I got into the big wide world, I started to learn all over again.

Over the next few weeks, the intention is to reveal what, from a Costs Lawyer’s point of view, the lecturers should have told you about being in practice, how to run a case, how to be profitable and other legal jargon.

In order to receive the words of wisdom, please click to subscribe on the right and all will be revealed.