header-logo header-logo

13 September 2023
Issue: 8040 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Procedure & practice , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Lawyers call for a pause on fixed costs

With less than two weeks to go before the extension of fixed recoverable costs (FRC), costs lawyers have urged a six-month delay on the basis the current plans are ‘piecemeal and unreasonable’.

The FRC extension to cases valued up to £100,000 is due to begin on 1 October. However, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is still consulting on aspects such as whether costs on assessment and certain clinical negligence cases should be included, with any resulting reforms being implemented in April 2024. The Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) warned this six-month hiatus between the reforms going live and further reforms being added would result in a basket of cases where different rules applied.

The ACL also wants clinical negligence excluded from the new rules until the Department of Health and Social Care’s separate FRC scheme for cases worth up to £25,000 has been published.

ACL chair Jack Ridgway said: ‘Irrespective of our opposition to the FRC extension on principle, it is clear that the government’s piecemeal approach to reform is only going to cause more problems than it purports to solve.

‘It fails to give the legal market sufficient time to plan, prepare and adapt to what will be a significant upheaval. The MoJ needs to fix the Solicitors Act 1974 before tipping a new load of cases into the system.’

In August, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil) formally launched judicial review proceedings against the inclusion of clinical negligence claims.

The Bar Council was due to meet with MoJ officials this week about its concerns, namely, it is not possible to recover the advocacy fee for preparation and advice if the case settles or is vacated shortly before trial. Moreover, the fixed advocacy fee has not kept pace with inflation.

Sam Townend KC, vice chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘There are aspects of the reforms that remain unreasonable and arguably irrational.

‘The costs regime should help, not hinder, settlement and getting the backlog down.’

Townend hinted at a potential legal challenge from the Bar Council, stating his hope the government could reflect ‘so we can avoid the need for judicial review’.

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