The Jackson verdict

I will never forget Thursday 14 January 2010. The day began with a “lock-in” at the Court of Appeal but no liquor in sight. At 0930 a herd of anoraks were allowed the privilege of being shut in a room to read the final conclusions of Sir Rupert Jackson, a year after he had taken on the impossible task of restructuring our costs regime, which was a ghastly mess. As I ripped into the report it soon became clear that the man had pulled it off.

It is an inevitability of my work that I regularly read reports and judgments. What Jackson LJ has produced is lucid, reasoned and stunning. I read the final report until my eyes ached. It is traditional for those who author reports to invite comment. The Jackson masterstroke was to get out on the road and canvass opinions from all who attended. Votes were taken.

Exact numbers were noted. Points made were recorded carefully in writing. As the master of the rolls noted at the packed press conference to launch the report last week, every recommendation was based upon empirical evidence. Each proposal was presented with hard evidence to support it. I know that people of the calibre of His Honour Michael Cook were asked to look at materials in draft. Wise counsel was taken. Any future enquiry as to law reform in any field must surely follow this approach.

Implementation

Will the proposals be implemented? Both the media and the Judiciary are smitten. The former have been on the wrong and devastatingly expensive end of conditional fees. The senior judiciary back Sir Rupert to the hilt. The lord chief justice and master of the rolls appeared alongside Jackson at the launch of the report.

There was one stunning moment. A reporter asked if the two distinguished guests accepted that they, as members of the judiciary, bore some blame for costs running amok. The answer from both was that if Rupert said it was so then plainly it must be true. That immediate and unequivocal acceptance spoke volumes. Jackson LJ is right.

At the party on the evening of publication it was announced that Jackson LJ had accepted an invitation to oversee implementation. I anticipate that there will be two strands of reform: change that can be achieved by Statutory Instrument and Rules of Court will be faster than those areas where primary legislation is necessary.

A list of which reforms need an Act of Parliament is to be found on page 472 of the final report, immediately after a detailed summary of reforms recommended at page 463 in the report.

This is an election year and inevitably that will delay implementation. It may not be unrealistic to say that it will be 2011 before we see a difference. Were there to be a change of government I do not think reform would be abandoned. The promise of saving the NHS millions of pounds and, arguably, reducing the remuneration of lawyers is surely a vote-winner.

A civil star

One man was singled out for praise at the party and that was Bob Musgrove, chief executive of the Civil Justice Council (CJC). He toured the world with the Jackson team and no doubt gave sound advice when asked for it. I understand that the CJC will be at the heart of bringing into effect the proposals. A meeting has already been set for late March to get stuck into the Protocol changes and the next meeting of the Council will aim to allocate the heavy workload ahead. The welcome recommendation to prohibit referral fees is one which some commentators say is incapable of achievement. Having seen both of them at close quarters I say do not under-estimate either Musgrove or Jackson LJ. It will happen.

I have never been to a press conference before. When Sir Rupert concluded answering questions I began to clap. People do not clap at these events. No one had told me this. However, Nicholas Bevan loyally joined in and then the whole room erupted in applause. It was justified. As I left the party the great man went out of his way to thank me for attending the conference. How he noticed a non-entity at the back of a full room is beyond me but it was typical of him.

A watershed

Civil procedure will never be the same again. Let us be thankful for that. Sir Rupert has delivered and that will never be forgotten. Although he anticipated a mass stabbing by critics it has not happened. The media, understandably, welcomed his ideas. What criticism we have seen has been muted and, in my view, to be expected for there are bound to be losers and it is they who will wail the loudest. I would be surprised and disappointed if these great achievements were not, eventually, reflected in elevation to the highest judicial office possible.

Dominic Regan is professor of law at City University, London, a member of the CJC costs committee and a pre-eminent speaker on civil litigation issues
 

• Add new comment
• Printer-friendly version