header-logo header-logo

05 September 2014 / Seamus Smyth
Issue: 7620 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Making matters worse?

Woolf & Jackson have diluted claimants’ costs recovery, says Seamus Smyth

The Woolf and Jackson Reports have made life tougher for claimants in business litigation by (i) introducing new litigation stages whose costs are not recoverable, (ii) increasing costs overall, and (iii) substantially reducing the proportion of costs which are recoverable by successful claimants. The two reports brought significant improvements but those improvements should not blind us to their—no doubt accidental—adverse consequences. Will it get worse?

In the 1990s (before Woolf) one could, with reasonable confidence, advise a client with a commercial claim that if a letter before action were written and he instituted successful proceedings shortly thereafter, he would probably be awarded, say, 80% of his actual costs. 20% was bad enough.

Woolf woes

Woolf introduced protocols. These are expensive; the costs are likely to be irrecoverable. He promoted mediation—also expensive—the cost of which is almost certainly irrecoverable. Summary assessment of costs in interlocutory proceedings was also a consequence of Woolf. The preparation of a summary assessment schedule alone has a further cost (which is totally wasted if the court declines to assess

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll