Daniel Green shares his reflections on Lord Justice Jackson’s civil justice costs reforms
Last month the author of the 2013 costs reforms, Lord Justice Jackson (Sir Rupert) retired from the Court of Appeal.
In his final speech, Sir Rupert suggested that the ‘blunt and inescapable fact is that the Jackson reforms have achieved significant reductions in the costs of litigation… most of the reforms have worked well, but a few have not. Those reforms which work well have also promoted access to justice’.
The reforms aimed to make the costs of litigation more ‘proportionate’ and more predictable. The reforms to substantive law (eg, the abolition of recoverable success fees and after-the-event (ATE) premiums) delivered immediate reductions in costs payable by a losing party in personal injury and clinical negligence cases. They have not, however, as far as I can see, reduced the actual costs of the underlying litigation itself.
Costs management
Sir Rupert’s controversial costs budgeting reform was, in my view, his greatest failure. Indeed, it could be argued that costs have actually increased—lawyers
