Implementation of the Jackson reforms was predicted by many to mean a dramatic drop in claim numbers. The Access to Justice Action Group predicted “there will be at least 25% fewer claimants”.

Many scoffed at the idea the reforms would lead to a reduction in motor premiums.

To date there has apparently been no reduction in the number of new claims being notified or issued. The number of complex commercial litigation cases in the courts surged by 16% last year.

News emerges comprehensive motor insurance prices have fallen by around 19% in the last year.

We can no doubt expect a flurry of apologies for inaccurate predictions.

PD 47 para.13.10 allow a party to vary their bill:

“(1) If a party wishes to vary that party’s bill of costs, points of dispute or a reply, an amended or supplementary document must be filed with the court and copies of it must be served on all other relevant parties.

(2) Permission is not required to vary a bill of costs, points of dispute or a reply but the court may disallow the variation or permit it only upon conditions, including conditions as to the payment of any costs caused or wasted by the variation.”

It is in the court’s discretion as to whether to disallow the variation. For a case proceeding to a detailed assessment hearing this is straightforward enough. The court can rule on this issue, if it is contentious, at the start of the hearing.

But what about a case going to provisional assessment? Does that require an application is advance of the provisional assessment, despite permission not being required to make the variation itself? Will the court even know there has been a variation if only the amended bill is filed with the court?

The Association of Costs Lawyers has published an excellent White Paper on the First Year of Costs Management.

Unfortunately, it repeats the myth that costs budgeting means Costs Lawyers are the “quantity surveyors of the litigation world”.

When a quantity survey puts a price on constructing a building, he knows the precise shape and size of the planned building. Give of take a margin of error of a few millimetres, at most, the end building should follow the exact measurements given in the architect's plans. Working out the number of bricks required, sacks of cement, etc, is a scientific process. Quantity surveyors do not face the problem of not being sure whether the end building will be a bungalow, a skyscraper or a half finished flat.

There are going to be some very upset Costs Lawyer clients if they buy into this quantity surveyor myth.

Now that we are a year into the Jackson Reforms, where do we find ourselves?

Strangely, not as far forward as we might have expected.

A combination of the staggered introduction and transitional provisions to the extended Portals (not actually a Jackson reform, but the extension of fixed fees was a Jackson proposal) mean the impact on these claims has yet to be fully felt. Nevertheless, the next 6-12 months will see a significant reduction in costs work in an area that is the bread and butter of many costs practitioners.

The impact of the introduction of provisional assessment has also yet to be fully felt with the transitional provisions stills seeing some lower value costs claims in the system. Although I undertake only a relatively small amount of advocacy at detailed assessment on an agency basis, I know there are some practitioners who undertake a significant amount of such work. They will acutely feel the loss of this work. Additionally, for those larger costs firms that have dedicated advocates for detailed assessments, the end to assessment for bills under £75,000 will have a major impact for work levels. Whether the provisional assessment scheme will ultimately be judged a success depends on whether the judiciary get a proper grip of the process. Early signs are not great.

Other than the odd judicial comment, we still have no real clue as to how the new proportionality test will be applied. Although this is no big surprise in relation to detailed assessment, because of the transitional provisions, we would have expected something to emerge from the costs budgeting process. Why no decision yet along the lines of: “I would have approved budgets of £100,000 given the complexity of the issues but I note the value of the claim is only £25,000 and I will therefore limit each party’s budgets to that amount”.

Costs budgeting is in serious danger of turning into a disaster. More judicial training is urgently needed to introduce some consistency in approach and to ensure judges understand the rules. The big problem is judges uncoupling costs management from case management. (More on this another day.)

Work on the new bill of costs format continues. All bills to be prepared at the touch of a button when this is ready?

And then we have Mitchell. I have already seen a number of Costs Lawyers and costs draftsmen Mitchelled and this will only get worse before it gets better. Professional indemnity insurance premiums are set to rocket.

If this was the end of the first year school report, the Jackson Reforms would merit the school teacher’s favourite: “Very trying”.

Different courts are introducing their own directions as to the provisional assessment process (and rewriting the rules in places).

The Senior Courts Costs Office requests that the receiving party’s full file of papers is filed with the Court rather than just the limited documents provided for within the Practice Direction. This is a very sensible requirement and the Practice Direction allows the Court to order the filing of any papers it considers appropriate (although the Practice Direction did not, perhaps, envisage that everything would be requested in every case).

Other courts are ordering that “optional” Replies are served in every case.

Some courts are expressly inviting parties to serve Replies not limited to points of principle and concessions only (in direct contradiction of PD 47 para.12.1).

Other courts are annotating Precedent G: “in the absence of a reply from receiving party, I assess this item as per the paying party’s offer”, clearly not being aware why no reply has been given (see PD 47 para.12.1 again).

This nonsense has to stop.

A judge at a sufficiently senior level needs to get to grips with this urgently.

It is perfectly possible (for “possible” read “obvious”) that the provisional assessment rules were not very well thought out or well drafted. Nevertheless, any revision to the rules should be applied consistently and after proper consultation (this could be done in the space of a few weeks with appropriate stakeholders), not piecemeal and at the whim of different judges rewriting the rules to their own design.

There. I’ve said it.

The issue over late service of optional Replies in detailed assessment proceedings rumbles on. I cannot comment on whether the Senior Courts Costs Office has developed a “policy” line on this point (other than referring you to paragraph 19.5 of the Senior Courts Costs Office Guide 2013) but can report on a recent decision before Master Gordon-Saker.

Claimant made an application for permission to rely on Replies served out of time. Application dismissed with costs to the Defendant. Timescales set down in rules are there to be followed. No good reason put forward for late service. The hope that the cost of drafting Replies might be avoided by a negotiated settlement was not a “good reason”.

None of this is to suggest the parties may not agree sensible extensions between themselves for service of Replies.

The lesson is that if you wish to serve Replies after the date provided for by the rules, agreement should be reached before the deadline passes. If you wait until afterwards, you will have an uphill struggle.

Online dating sites have made it easier than ever to meet intelligent, witty and attractive people.

Unfortunately, they do not guarantee matching you up with people you share genuine interests with, especially if your only interest is costs law. The perils of office relationships act as their own barrier to finding love with those you might otherwise share your interest(s).

The Legal Costs Blog is therefore delighted to announce the launch today of the Legal Costs Dating Service. This will put readers in touch with others who share a genuine passion for legal costs who are looking to take that passion to the next level.

The Legal Costs Dating Service matches you with costs singles in your area based on key dimensions of compatibility (an interest in costs) proven to be the foundation for a long-term relationship. Members will receive personalised recommendations, can send and receive contact requests, share photos on a one-to-one basis and have unlimited communication with your recommended partners.

Membership is £150 a quarter but we are offering a free 3 month membership to those who sign up TODAY only. If you would like to take advantage of this offer, please email a recent photo to with “I’m looking for costs love” as the subject, sexual orientation and detailing the particular area of costs law you are interested in. Only those with a genuine passion for legal costs should apply. No time wasters please.

Request received this week from costs drafting firm:

“We would be much obliged if you could provide to us your Points of Dispute on computer disk or by email pursuant to Costs Practice Direction 35.6, to enable us to prepare Replies”.

Never let it be said that costs draftsmen do not keep up to date with the latest developments in costs law.

Mr Justice Ramsey, speaking at the IBC Solicitors’ Costs Conference, suggested that under the new proportionality test parties should bear in mind that combined costs should not normally exceed the sum in dispute.

We have been waiting for some helpful guidance on the new test and now we have it. If we assume that the ratio between claimants’ costs and defendant’s costs is roughly 60/40 in favour of claimants, we now have a simple formula for calculating the maximum cap that should be allowed when setting budgets or undertaking assessment under the new test:

• Claimant’s costs capped at 60% of the realistic valuation of the claim when setting a budget or 60% of the damages recovered when assessing costs.

• Defendant’s costs capped at 40% of the realistic valuation of the claim when setting a budget or 40% of the damages recovered when assessing costs.

There are some arguments as to whether the defendant’s costs should be capped at the level of the pleaded case rather than the likely or actual damages, but you get the general idea.

The need for detailed assessment will disappear in a large number of lower value cases as it will be obvious the cap will bite.

The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) is somewhat in a state of disruption, and will be for the next couple of months, with refurbishment works being undertaken to the Thomas More Building (TMB) at the RCJ. Apparently this is part of a planned refurbishment of the Royal Courts of Justice to accommodate the arrival of the Central London County Court (although rumour has it that asbestos was discovered in the building).

In any event, costs judges and costs officers on floors six to eight of the Thomas More Building have been moved around the building. The ACL has helpfully obtained a list showing the change in court rooms for the costs judges and costs officers for the period 10 March to 9 May when the refurbishment ends:

If you are attending the SCCO during this period, you should expect to appear in these court rooms rather than the ones set out on hearing notices previously sent to the parties.

Chief Master Hurst: From TMB 7.07 to court room 52 (1st floor, TMB)
Master O’Hare: From court 58 (7th floor) to court room 95 (5th floor)
Master Campbell: From court 59 (8th floor) to court room 56 (5th floor)
Master Simons: From court 57 (6th floor) to court room 93 (5th floor)
Master Gordon-Saker: From TMB 6.07 to court room 53 (2nd floor)
Master Haworth: From TMB 7.06 to court room 54 (3rd floor)
Master Leonard: From TMB 6.09 to court room 55 (4th floor)
Master Rowley: From TM 7.05 to court room 94 (5th floor)
Deputy Master’s room: From TM 6.11 to court room 91 (4th floor)

Costs Officers Lambert, Martin and Piggott will be on the 3rd and 4th floors:
Mr Lambert: From TM 6.05 to court room 89 (4th floor)
Mr Martin: From TM 8.06 to court room 88 (4th floor)
Mr Piggott: From TM 6.06 to court room 90 (4th floor)

The court staff will be on the 2nd floor; the Public Counter will be on the 3rd floor; and court rooms beginning with a 5 are in what is known as the ‘Stack’, in the corner of the TMB. Court rooms beginning with a 9 are in the main part of the building.

Allow yourself an extra 5 minutes to find the correct room.

Next Page →

  • Headlines From Our Blog

  • Keywords on our Site

  • LinkedIn

    Connect with us on LinkedIn

    Connect with us on LinkedIn
  • Twitter