To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
5 thoughts on “New proportionality test”
quite frankly this new proportionility test is a disgrace
Total inequality of arms will follow.
Defendants will now know they can test Claimant’s resolve by fighting and whilst knowing that the Claimant’s legal representative will only recover a limited fraction of their costs notwithstanding that the work was nececessary and was work which the Defendant’s Defence of the matter compelled them to undertake
This new test takes a costs draftsman “crystal ball” gazing to a new level!
Will any transtional arrangements save a Solicitor in respect for work undertaken pre April 2013 but assessed post that date??
If not that advice letter for the Bill currently on your desk now need be water tight!!
The question based on those figures is easy for a PI Lawyer as they can point the client to the new fixed costs tables. The hard bit will be telling the client that they cannot possibly act for him, as the maximum level of fixed costs in Table B will only cover 1/10th of the actual costs incurred.
Well what about the exceptional case clause where costs fall above 20%?………….I thought this was especially for such cases as this? Am I wrong?
No, you’re quite right. The problem as I see it though is that the solicitor will want to know that they will get properly remunerated before they take the case on. Will the Court hear an application for exceptional circumstances before the case has started? One solution is to seek allocation to the multi-track under CPR 26.8, but by this time the solicitor will have incurred a fair amount of costs. They risk losing those costs if they are on a CFA and they decide to stop acting if the Court allocate to the fast track. I really can’t see solicitors taking the risk on larger cases when the profit has been taken out of the lower value matters.