Iain Stark, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, was recently reported on the Legal Futures website, in connection with the plan to extend the provisional assessment pilot nationwide, as suggesting that provisional assessments should be handled by regional costs judges, or alternatively that regional costs officers should be appointed. This is such a no […]
Regional SCCO please Read More »
One of the pleasures of writing the Legal Costs Blog is the comments that readers add to posts. These are usually informative and thoughtful. Sometimes they are critical of the contents of something I have written. Sometimes these are outright (anonymous) personal attacks. I take the view that if one wishes to engage in this
Compensation culture Read More »
As widely predicted, the Government has announced its intention to extend the RTA portal scheme for cases worth up to £25,000 and also to extend this into employer and public liability personal injury cases. The Government also intends implementing a system of fixed recoverable costs, similar to that proposed by Lord Justice Jackson in his
RTA portal to be extended together with fixed costs Read More »
Forthcoming change to Costs Practice Direction deletes the current CPD 45.3: “No party should file or serve a statement of costs of the detailed assessment proceedings unless the court orders him to do so.” That will mean that the existing CPD 13.5(4) will kick in: “The statement of costs must be filed at court and
Need to serve statement of costs Read More »
I recently commented on the apparent contradiction between Andrew Dismore’s, co-ordinator of the Access to Justice Action Group, letter to the Guardian newspaper predicting that “there will be at least 25% fewer claimants” as a result of the proposed changes to the no win, no fee system and his other prediction, in relation to clinical
Access to Justice Action Group explains Read More »
Some people are “glass half full” types. Some people are “glass half empty” types. Some people are “who nicked my bloody glass” types. Forget for the moment the other Jackson proposals and what impact they may have and just look at two forthcoming changes to the Costs Practice Direction: • An end to lengthy
Death by a thousand cuts Read More »
One of the superficially innocuous forthcoming changes to the Costs Practice Direction relates to the contents of Replies. Replies are currently, of course, optional and one therefore might have expected these only to be drafted in cases, and in relation to specific disputes, where it might usefully narrow the issues or where positive concessions are
Replies to Points of Dispute – Goodbye Read More »
Has the Guardian newspaper gone mad? Well, obviously yes, but nothing new there. Rather, what incoherent drivel is their latest poll? The headline reads: “Should no-win, no-fee be banned?” It then continues: “The legal aid bill proposes altering conditional fee agreements so that successful claimants will have to pay their own lawyers’ fees. Lord Prescott
Should no-win, no-fee be banned? Read More »
The forthcoming changes to the Costs Practice Direction substitute for paragraph 35.3: “The paying party must state in an open letter accompanying the points of dispute what sum, if any, it offers to pay in settlement of the total costs claimed. The paying party may also make an offer under Part 36.” I really don’t
Open offers in detailed assessment proceedings Read More »
The upcoming changes to the Costs Practice Direction include amendments to the rules concerning Points of Dispute. The current CPD 35.2 reads: “Points of dispute should be short and to the point and should follow as closely as possible Precedent G of the Schedule of Costs Precedents annexed to this Practice Direction.” This is to
New Points of Dispute format Read More »
