GHRs underpin the business of litigation & often commercial survival itself, as David Greene explains
After months of hard work on the part of the Civil Justice Council (CJC) Costs Committee, its Chair David Foskett, its secretariat and the statistical experts, Paul Fenn and Neil Rickman, its major recommendations on guideline hourly r ates (GHRs) were rejected by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson last week. The committee made it plain in its report, which was also published last week, that the data it had available to it was limited. Lord Dyson determined that those limitations undermined the recommendations on new GHRs made by the committee to such an extent that it was not appropriate to put them into effect. Some might ask; does it matter and what happens now?
Yes, it matters greatly. GHRs are a foundation stone for the costs regime in litigation; the recovery of costs and for many firms the essence of their commercial survival. The last time they were reviewed was in 2010. Many might have thought that four years later the review would see an increase
