header-logo header-logo

25 April 2016
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Bill of costs in "deadlock"

Lord Justice Jackson calls for new bill format by October 2017

The “cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive” bill of costs should be replaced by new format for all work by October 2017, Lord Justice Jackson has said.

Jackson LJ addressed the current deadlock surrounding the introduction of a new bill of costs in his speech at the Law Society’s Civil Litigation Conference last week. The current bill is based on the “style of a Victorian account book” and “makes it relatively easy for a receiving party to disguise or even hide what has gone on,” he said.

“It is opaque, giving no clear information to the reader as to why costs were incurred or even the underlying work done. The information about time spent on documents is particularly difficult to decode. The current form of bill is an anachronism that makes no use of time-recording software.”

Work to replace the current format is ongoing. The Hutton Committee, the working party on the issue, produced an automated bill of costs format last year which used J-Codes, a standardised way of capturing time-recorded information. A voluntary pilot began in October 2015 and was originally due to end this month. However, the civil procedure rule committee (CPRC) extended it to December 2016 due to concerns the proposed bill was too expensive, prescriptive, complex and time-consuming.

Jackson LJ said the proposals had “reached a state of deadlock”, and the CPRC should choose a date for implementation, preferably October 2017.

“Work done before this date may be recorded in the old system and with the old format bill,” he said.

“Work done after this date should be done in the new format bill. There will be no retrospective imposition and no need to go through historic information.”

He said concerns about J-Codes had overshadowed the proposals and they should go ahead “with the references to the J-Codes removed”. 

Sue Nash, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL), says: “The ACL’s new bill format working party is examining Jackson LJ’s proposals and we will again canvas views from our members. 

“This is an important issue affecting the entire legal profession and thorough and proper consideration must be given to all proposals. What is certain is that costs expertise will still be needed, arguably more than ever, whatever the outcome of this initiative.”

Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll