*/
The judicial costs guru laid out plans to extend fixed recoverable costs (FRC) for some cases worth up to £250,000, but his proposals did not go far as he had previously indicated.
In a supplemental report to his initial 2010 version, Lord Justice Jackson suggested introducing FRC for all fast track cases and a new intermediate track for certain claims up to £100,000.
He recommended a voluntary pilot of a ‘capped costs’ regime for business and property cases up to £250,000, with streamlined procedures and capped recoverable costs up to £80,000, as well as measures to limit recoverable costs in judicial review cases.
For clinical negligence claims he proposed that the Department of Health and the Civil Justice Council set up a working party with claimant and defendant representatives to develop a bespoke process for handling clinical negligence claims up to £25,000, with a grid of FRC.
Putting forward his proposals, Jackson said: ‘I have sought to balance the many competing interests in terms of access to justice and proportionality of costs.’
He said he was ‘bound to accept’ that improvements in costs management had ‘eliminated any need to develop FRC on the scale canvassed’ in a lecture he gave in 2016, in which he mooted FRCs for all civil cases worth up to £250,000.
Nevertheless, he added: ‘The possibility remains of substantially extending FRC in the future, if the costs management process either fails to deliver effective control over costs or becomes unduly expensive.’
Commenting, Bar Chair Andrew Langdon QC said the review indicated that Jackson has ‘listened carefully to the views of the legal profession and accepted proposals from the Bar Council and others that multi track cases are so varied in character that they do not lend themselves to any rigid costs matrix, and that cost management is working better than had been supposed’.
He said the review ‘correctly, steers away from extending FRC up to £250,000’ and ‘encouragingly’ proposes a grid of recoverable fees that include ring-fencing fees for counsel or other specialist lawyers in more complex fast track cases and for intermediate track cases, including for trial advocacy.
The judicial costs guru laid out plans to extend fixed recoverable costs (FRC) for some cases worth up to £250,000, but his proposals did not go far as he had previously indicated.
In a supplemental report to his initial 2010 version, Lord Justice Jackson suggested introducing FRC for all fast track cases and a new intermediate track for certain claims up to £100,000.
He recommended a voluntary pilot of a ‘capped costs’ regime for business and property cases up to £250,000, with streamlined procedures and capped recoverable costs up to £80,000, as well as measures to limit recoverable costs in judicial review cases.
For clinical negligence claims he proposed that the Department of Health and the Civil Justice Council set up a working party with claimant and defendant representatives to develop a bespoke process for handling clinical negligence claims up to £25,000, with a grid of FRC.
Putting forward his proposals, Jackson said: ‘I have sought to balance the many competing interests in terms of access to justice and proportionality of costs.’
He said he was ‘bound to accept’ that improvements in costs management had ‘eliminated any need to develop FRC on the scale canvassed’ in a lecture he gave in 2016, in which he mooted FRCs for all civil cases worth up to £250,000.
Nevertheless, he added: ‘The possibility remains of substantially extending FRC in the future, if the costs management process either fails to deliver effective control over costs or becomes unduly expensive.’
Commenting, Bar Chair Andrew Langdon QC said the review indicated that Jackson has ‘listened carefully to the views of the legal profession and accepted proposals from the Bar Council and others that multi track cases are so varied in character that they do not lend themselves to any rigid costs matrix, and that cost management is working better than had been supposed’.
He said the review ‘correctly, steers away from extending FRC up to £250,000’ and ‘encouragingly’ proposes a grid of recoverable fees that include ring-fencing fees for counsel or other specialist lawyers in more complex fast track cases and for intermediate track cases, including for trial advocacy.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Leah Arthur, a pupil, and her second seat supervisor, John Goss, share their perspectives on building a productive pupil-supervisor relationship
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
The Ministry of Justice will match-fund up to 100 criminal pupillages, with grants available to criminal chambers across England and Wales. Similar to the COIC scheme, the grants will match-fund pupillages additional to those otherwise offered without government funding
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
