Bill of costs in "deadlock"

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.”