header-logo header-logo

Government gives green light to Jackson plan

18 November 2010
Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

Government gives green light to Jackson plan

The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation paper formally backing Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals for civil litigation funding reform.

The proposals, set out in Lord Jackson’s report in January, include abolishing recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums so that claimants have an interest in controlling their costs. General damages payments would be increased by ten per cent to balance the impact of this, and the increase would apply whether or not the case proceeded to court.

Contingency fees, under which lawyers take a proportion of the claimant’s damages as fees, would be permitted. Personal injury claimants would be protected from paying a winning defendant’s costs through qualified one-way costs shifting. The prescribed recoverable rate for litigants in person, typically individuals appearing before the small claims court, would  rise from £9.25 to £20.

The MoJ launched the paper, Proposals for Reform of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales, alongside its proposals for legal aid reforms this week.

In their foreword, the Lord Chancellor Ken Clarke and Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said costs in civil cases had “frequently become disproportionate and unaffordable to many individual litigants and businesses—particularly small businesses”.

The proposals were underpinned by four principles, they said, “that necessary claims can be brought; that reasonable claims should be settled as early as possible; that unnecessary or frivolous claims are deterred; and that as a result costs overall become more proportionate”.

However, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) warned the proposals would “hit the weakest the hardest”.

APIL president, Muiris Lyons said: “No win, no fee has helped provide access to justice for injured people who cannot otherwise afford it.

“The proposal to increase damages to offset the effect of this move is a white elephant for two reasons: first, damages are now too low in any event, as, in most categories, they have never been increased in line with Law Commission recommendations; and second, the proposed increase will not always cover the costs to be borne by the injured person in any event, leaving him with a shortfall in his damages.

“Those who will be affected most are likely to be people suffering serious or catastrophic injury, where the damages involved are often very high.”

Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll