header-logo header-logo

11 March 2010 / Andrew Parker
Issue: 7408 / Categories: Opinion , Costs
printer mail-detail

Access all areas

Public, not vested, interests lie at the heart of Jackson LJ’s final report,says Andrew Parker

It is clear from Sir Rupert Jackson’s final report that access to justice has been at the forefront of his mind when reshaping the litigation landscape. The balance is that access must be both for claimants with valid claims and for defendants with valid defences. That is the public interest focus that lies at the heart of the whole report, cutting through the many pleas of vested interests.

Thus the decision to recommend that recovery of success fees and after the event (ATE) insurance premiums should cease to be recoverable is taken in the full knowledge that there must be some acceptable alternative (NLJ, 26 February 2010, p 294) Sir Rupert has settled on “qualified one-way costs shifting”, which would ensure protection for the vast majority of claimants who currently use ATE from any exposure to opponents’ costs, save where the claimant fails to beat a defendant’s Pt 36 offer.

There will still be a place for ATE insurance, but

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll