Legal Cost Specialists

Posts made in March, 2010

RTA Claims Process – No question left unanswered

By on Mar 31, 2010 | 0 comments

District Judge Robert Hill is a member of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee and was a member of the sub-committee which drafted the new RTA Protocol and the consequential changes. Writing in the Law Society Gazette on the new rules he states: "Whatever your question, it is answered in the RTA Protocol or in PD8B or in the amended rules".  Really?  If so, why has that bottle of champagne not been claimed (see earlier post)? The competition is open to the judiciary too, even those who helped draft the...

Read More

51st Update to the CPR – 3

By on Mar 30, 2010 | 0 comments

More on the 51st Update to the Civil Procedure Rules. The changes come into force on 6 April 2010.     A new CPD 39.2 is created which reads: “Where there is a dispute about the insurance premium in a staged policy (which has the same meaning as in paragraph 19.4(3A)) it will normally be sufficient for the receiving party to set out in any reply the reasons for choosing the particular insurance policy and the basis on which the insurance premium is rated whether block rated or individually rated.”  This formalises the guidance given in Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2006] EWCA Civ...

Read More

Jackson Update

By on Mar 29, 2010 | 0 comments

The rumour mill continues unabated as to whether Lord Justice Jackson’s legal costs review will ever see the light of day.   I attended a conference the other week where one of the other speakers informed the audience that Jackson LJ was to take no further part in implementation of his report and would be undertaking no further interviews on the subject.  This suggested that the Report was about to kicked into the long-grass and he had either jumped or been pushed first.   Then, on 17 March 2010, the following announcement was made on the Judiciary of England and Wales website:   “Following publication of the final report of Lord Justice Jackson’s comprehensive review, the senior judiciary has considered its response to the report. The Judicial Executive Board has agreed to support the recommendations of the final report, and has established a Judicial Steering Group, with a membership as follows:   Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Chairman of the Judicial Studies Board Lord Justice Moore Bick, Deputy Head of Civil Justice Lord Justice Jackson  The Steering Group will lead on judicial contributions to implementation of the review, recognising that much of the task will fall to Government, as key reforms require primary legislation. They will provide direction on areas where the judiciary is itself in the lead for implementation, such as case and costs management.”   This, obviously, totally contradicted what was being said only a few days before.   Now the Law Society Gazette has reported that a Conservative government is opposed to a number of Jackson LJ’s key recommendations including a blanket ban on personal injury referral fees.   Shadow justice minister Henry Bellingham said a Tory government would consult with the profession on all of Jackson’s recommendations, about which he said “some are good news, but others aren’t workable”.  Bellingham expressed concern over the proposal to prevent successful claimants recovering success fees and ATE premiums from defendants. He also expressed concern about Jackson’s proposal to implement one-way costs shifting.   Bellingham said that if success fees and ATE insurance premiums were non-recoverable, “people might find that solicitors won’t take their case”. He said that one-way costs-shifting could encourage unnecessary litigation,...

Read More

Fee earner

By on Mar 26, 2010 | 0 comments

A further definition from The (Alternative) Legal Costs Dictionary:   Fee earner n.  partner, solicitor, legal executive, paralegal, litigation executive, legal secretary, post boy, 12 year old on Take Your Daughter to Work Day visit, office cat, visiting office photocopier repair man, office...

Read More

51st Update to the CPR – 2

By on Mar 25, 2010 | 5 comments

More on the 51st Update to the Civil Procedure Rules. The changes come into force on 6 April 2010. CPD 6.4(1)(a) is amended to remove the requirement to file an estimate of costs with an allocation questionnaire in fast track matters. This must be viewed as being a retrograde step. In future, parties in fast track matters will not know the level of costs their opponent is incurring until the pre-trial check list stage. By that time most of the damage will have been done.  A party may, when faced with a large estimate of future costs, take a commercial view of the claim and settle the case early to avoid disproportionate costs. Without an estimate at the allocation stage they will not be able to do this.  Equally, it will be too late for the court to make robust case management decisions to control disproportionate costs. At exactly the same time Jackson LJ is proposing that judges take a more robust approach to case managing claims to control costs, the rules go in the opposite direction. I understand the motivation behind removing the requirement to prepare the estimate was because the rules require an estimate to be "substantially in the form illustrated in Precedent H".  It was thought the expense of preparing an estimate in this way was not justified at allocation in fast track matters.  However, when was the last time a party complied with this requirement in a fast track matter (or, indeed, a multi track matter)?  Invariably no more than a global figure gets provided. A sensible rule appears to have been removed to solve a problem which did not...

Read More