header-logo header-logo

03 April 2019
Issue: 7835 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Ministers set out fixed costs proposals

Controlling costs should be top priority, lawyers say

Lawyers have given a cautious response to the launch of a consultation into fixed recoverable costs (FRC) in cases worth £25,000–£100,000.

FRC would also be extended to all cases on the fast-track worth up to £25,000, and a new process and FRC regime would be introduced for noise induced hearing loss cases.

FRC were first implemented for road traffic accident cases up to £10,000 damages in 2010. In November 2016, the government and senior judges backed extending FRC, and Sir Rupert Jackson was commissioned to develop proposals. Sir Rupert published a report in 2017, advocating extending FRC.

Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School, an NLJ columnist and adviser to Sir Rupert, says: ‘I have it on the highest authority that the ministry is keen to implement change.

‘It will not stop there. If the model works up to £100,000 the temptation will be to raise the ceiling to £250,000’.

However, the Association of Costs Lawyers called for more data and evidence. A spokesman said: ‘The proposed figures for the fixed costs adopted by the Ministry of Justice in the consultation are nearly two years out of date and were based on just one law firm’s sample of cases, where it acted for the defendants.

‘The government needs a much more rigorous statistical base if it is to widen the use of fixed costs, and also needs to commit to regularly reviewing and updating them.’

Brett Dixon, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said: ‘Attention must be on helping to control costs, including any recoverable costs of those representing the wrongdoer based on the work they do, rather than limiting what is recoverable from those responsible for putting the injured person back on track.’ 

The ‘Fixed recoverable costs consultation’, which opened last week, closes at one minute to midnight on 6 June 2019. 

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