header-logo header-logo

14 September 2013
Issue: 7576 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs changes ahead as "Scotland’s Jackson" reports

The Taylor Review – Scotland’s version of the Jackson Review – has recommended the introduction of contingency fees and one-way cost-shifting.

The Review of expenses and funding of civil litigation in Scotland, conducted by Sheriff Principal James Taylor, makes 85 recommendations in total, including costs management pilots for commercial cases where judges will be required to play a greater role in costs management.

However, the most far-reaching change for Scottish solicitors will be ‘no win, no fee’ cases where the fee is calculated as a percentage of the damages recovered. The maximum percentages will be “set on a sliding scale in which the percentage reduces as the award increases”.

Currently, litigation can be funded by “speculative fee agreements”, which are similar to conditional fee agreements apart from that success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums cannot be recovered from the losing opponent.

The Review also recommends that a pursuer (claimant) in a personal injury action should no longer have to pay the defender’s (defendant’s) costs if the action fails because “fear [of the cost of legal action] can result in good claims not being pursued”.

It does not recommend an increase in general damages – in England and Wales, a ten per cent rise has been introduced. Nor does it support a ban on referral fees, which it says are “a fact of life”.

Taylor highlighted “contextual differences” between the Jackson Review and his own, including that there was a “different culture” of litigation in Scotland, which has proportionately far fewer clinical negligence, motor and employer liability and other civil claims than in England. There are no plans to withdraw civil legal aid from any areas in Scotland, in sharp contrast to the position in England and Wales.

John Barrie and Jenny Dickson, Scottish Representatives on the executive committee of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL), said: “A number of the proposals in the Review appear to echo what has been introduced by the Jackson Reforms in England and Wales, despite the expenses landscape in Scotland being very different to that south of the Border.

“There is likely to be a considerable impact on the cost of claims in Scotland. The proposal to introduce no win no fee as a percentage of damages, linked with one way cost shifting may well lead to increased levels of settlement.”
 

Issue: 7576 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll