header-logo header-logo

26 June 2014 / Richard Langley
Issue: 7612 / Categories: Opinion , Profession , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

The simple approach

comment_ghrs

Simplifying procedures not lowering GHRs is the best way to contain litigation costs, says Richard Langley

If press reports are to be believed, the Master of the Rolls is about to publish new guideline hourly rates (GHRs) to be applied when assessing costs payable between the parties. The indications are that in most cases the GHRs (last revised in 2010) will be reduced.

Since there can be little doubt that the cost to law firms of providing legal services will generally have increased since 2010, it follows that any reductions in the GHRs must be the product of a judicial policy objective to reduce the costs of litigation.

It is legitimate to question why the judiciary regards it as its business to fix matters of policy such as this. No doubt, government is delighted to let the judges tackle this for them.

No direct correlation

The obvious problem with this particular method of bearing down on costs is that there is no direct correlation between reducing the costs payable by the loser to the winner and reducing the costs payable by

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll