Costs

The Kings’ Chambers costs team clarify costs arguments after two recent decisions

Much of what has been written on the Jackson report so far suggests that the time for debate is over. This is not correct. The debate is just beginning.

In a number of recent cases the courts have penalised a “successful” but dishonest party with a punitive costs order

Public, not vested, interests lie at the heart of Jackson LJ’s final report,says Andrew Parker

In the few weeks since publication of Sir Rupert Jackson’s final report last month, the most talked about of his recommendations has been the proposal to abolish the ability to recover success fees and after the event (ATE) insurance premiums from the losing party. The reactions have ranged from outraged cries that access to justice will be stifled, through a broad welcome from those who have to pay them now, to the ostrich-like assumption that the primary legislation needed will never happen.

The NLJ Jackson webcast is available to view now

The greatest myth of the moment is that “Jackson will never happen”. It will and soon. Momentum is the word of the moment.

Fourteen years ago Lord Woolf advocated a fast track for low value claims. Inherent in his proposals was the idea of a matrix of fixed costs for all claims within the track limits.

The ink is hardly dry on the Jackson Report on the civil costs regime and the government is already moving swiftly on one of the recommendations.

To Jackson LJ access to justice is “the ability of a person to obtain legal advice and representation, and to secure the adjudication through the courts of their legal rights and obligations,” and that is to be achieved at proportionate cost.