Legal Cost Specialists

Costs lawyer or costs draftsman urgently wanted

By on Sep 5, 2011 | 7 comments

The Civil Justice Council has announced the membership of an expert working party that will consider implementation of the Jackson reforms of civil litigation costs.

The working party will be considering proposals for qualified one-way costs shifting, Part 36 and the new proportionality test.

The members of the working party are:

• Chair: Alistair Kinley, head of policy development at the London office of national firm Berrymans Lace Mawer;
• Janet Tilley, managing partner at national firm Coleman CTTS;
• Mark Harvey, partner and head of the claimant division at Wales firm Hugh James;
• David Bott, managing partner at Cheshire firm Bott & Co and president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers;
• Don Clarke, partner and director of strategy at Bolton and Coventry firm Keoghs and vice president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers;
• Judith Gledhill, head of personal injury at national firm Thompsons;
• Hardeep Nahal, litigation partner in the London office of US firm McGuireWoods;
• Graham Huntley, partner in the London office of Hogan Lovells;
• Nick Bacon QC, costs specialist at London chambers 4 New Square;
• Rocco Pirozzolo, solicitor and underwriting manager at insurance group QBE Europe;
• Howard Grand, senior solicitor at Aviva Legal Services;
• David Fisher, catastrophic & injury claims technical manager at AXA Insurance;
• Mandy Knowlton-Rayner, principal risk officer at Norfolk County Council;
• Hilary Homfray, solicitor at Birmingham City Council;
• Kay Majid, solicitor and senior counsel at Tesco;
• Kathryn Mortimer, solicitor and head of legal services at DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Company;
• John Usher, solicitor and legal advisor to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers; and
• Colin Stutt, formerly of the Legal Services Commission.

Not a single costs lawyer, costs draftsman or costs judge amongst them. Other than Nick Bacon QC, one has to wonder what experience of detailed assessment proceedings any of them actually has.

And everyone will act all surprised when a totally unworkable definition of “proportionality” emerges.

You couldn’t make it up.


  1. Couldn’t agree more


    5th September 2011

  2. Its good to see that mostly claimant biased ”experts” will be in attendance. Hopefully, we can get rid of the test of necessity altogether!

    Truly Eminent Costs Professional

    5th September 2011

  3. I think they should set up a working party to discuss the membership of the costs working party.

    Cockney Rebel

    5th September 2011

  4. @Truly Eminent Costs Professional

    Claimant biased? How have you calculated that one?

    It’s a pretty even split as I see it.

    Pete B

    5th September 2011

  5. Don’t complain Simon. It will be like the simplification the CPR was to bring. The comlicated White Book RSC went from 3,500 pages to 5,000 plus for the simle CPR the last time I looked a couple of years ago. Let the experts muck it up. We litigate to our heart’s content until the next Jackson decides this Jackson got wrong and the experts meet yet again etc etc
    Whatever you do never consult those who actually work in the system because it might just work then !! Until then we fight each other as before let the coffers swell!!

    Kevyn Thompson Longmynd Legal Services

    5th September 2011

  6. Name withheld (I don’t want the ALCD hit team after me) but how vocal have the ALCD (or whatever they call themselves this week) been ? Nice to see that I am getting value for money from my ransom, sorry, practicing certificate.


    5th September 2011

  7. To ■anonymous on September 5th, 2011 4:25 pm

    I dont believe you are a member of the ACL.

    Truly Eminent Costs Professional

    5th September 2011

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.