Two recent decisions in different tribunals could not have been timed any better to liven up the debate raised in Jackson LJ’s proposals for civil costs reform and the government’s green paper.
David Greene reflects on the Jacksonian effect
Two recent decisions in different tribunals could not have been timed any better to liven up the debate raised in Jackson LJ’s proposals for civil costs reform and the government’s green paper.
A case in point
The decision in MGN Ltd v UK (App no 39401/04),[2011] All ER (D) 143 (Jan) by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) explores the relationship between Art 6 (access to justice) and Art 10 (freedom of speech). This raises some fascinating issues about the effect, or “chilling effect” as the ECtHR repeatedly quotes, that the recovery of the success fee on conditional fee agreements has upon the defendant.
Whether it has wider implications outside the defamation/privacy field remains to be seen but certainly it provides the pro-Jackson lobby with a shot in the arm in its bid
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
