header-logo header-logo

Jackson scales back plans for fixed recoverable costs

31 July 2017
Issue: 7757 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

Lord Justice Jackson has significantly scaled down previous plans to introduce fixed recoverable costs for all civil cases worth up to £250,000.

Instead, fixed recoverable costs will apply to all claims valued up to £25,000 (the fast-track), and to certain cases worth up to £100,000 that can be tried in three days or less with no more than two experts on each side (the intermediate track), Jackson LJ revealed this week in his long-awaited review of civil costs, Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Supplemental Report—Fixed Recoverable Costs by Lord Justice Jackson.

An opt-in pilot with capped recoverable costs will be run for business and property cases worth up to £250,000. New limits will be introduced for recoverable costs in judicial review cases, and a bespoke fixed costs regime will be introduced for clinical negligence cases worth up to £25,000, which are often highly complex.

The news will come as a relief to many lawyers, who feared fixed costs for all cases up to £250,000as previously suggested by Jackson LJwould make many cases commercially unviable, curbing access to justice for many people with valid claims. Jackson LJ toured England and Wales to hear the views of litigation lawyers while writing the report.

Andrew Langdon QC, Bar Chairman, said Jackson LJ’s review ‘indicates that he has listened carefully to the views of the legal profession and accepted proposals from the Bar Council and others that multi-track cases are so varied in character that they do not lend themselves to any rigid costs matrix, and that cost management is working better than had been supposed.

‘Encouragingly, there are also proposals in the report for a grid of recoverable fees which include ring-fencing fees for counsel or other specialist lawyers in more complex fast track cases and for intermediate track cases. These include trial advocacy fees.’

Welcoming the review as ‘a balanced package of reform’, David Cooper, council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL), said: ‘It has long seemed inevitable that the fast-track would be covered by a comprehensive fixed recoverable costs regime, but Sir Rupert is right to recommend that any extension beyond that be done is careful and measured way.’

Law Society President Joe Egan said: ‘The outcome of this review is good news for solicitors and consumers alikea “one size fits all” approach to the regime would have risked making many cases economically unviable.

‘It is essential for justice that a successful litigant is able to recover reasonable legal costs, instead of a pre-determined fixed sum. We're pleased that Lord Justice Jackson has listened to the strong feelings from solicitors and has reduced the scale of his original plans.’

Issue: 7757 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll