Richard Harrison criticises the over-simplistic approach to costs management
Commentary on the Jackson reforms as implemented in this year’s April rule changes tends to be influenced by the conventional view that budget control by the courts is an overwhelmingly good thing, that it enables sensible clients abetted by sensible judges to keep profligate lawyers in check, and that the manner in which it has been implemented is somehow beyond criticism.
This approach is over-simplistic. A judge sees the end result of case presentation in the form of trial bundles and live witnesses. The package is presented to him so he thinks it must have been a forecastable and linear process to get to that stage. This perception creates a judicial tendency to believe that litigation costs budgets can be both straightforward and realistic. This is rarely the case.
It has been said many times that a piece of litigation is like a construction project. However, not many buildings are put up while trying to avoid the malign attentions of a wily demolition
