header-logo header-logo

22 November 2023
Issue: 8050 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs to be uprated in line with inflation

Lawyers have welcomed a commitment to update the guideline hourly rates (GHR), review the costs provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974 and uprate the fixed recoverable costs cap

Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, announced last week at the Civil Justice Council’s National Forum that he is accepting all the recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s costs review in May. This means the GHR, which are used by judges to assess the costs of a solicitor, and which were last raised in 2021, will be uplifted for inflation from January.

David Bailey-Vella, vice-chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said the uplift would be ‘a great relief to the profession’ while the review of the costs provisions was ‘long overdue and will hopefully result in a far more efficient process for resolving costs disputes’.

Also speaking at the Forum, the Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk confirmed that fixed recoverable costs will be uprated for inflation next April. Chalk said he would consider giving the annual task of uprating costs to an independent party, judge or body outside of government in future as a way of keeping things ‘stable, predictable and proportionate’.

Sam Townend KC, vice chair of the Bar, said: ‘It is essential for access to justice that fixed recoverable costs thresholds keep up with rate of inflation, to allow for the work covered by the regime to be viable for both solicitors and barristers.

‘I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor also agreed to look at the question of independently set annual uprating of these costs recovery caps. The current system which splits the setting of the rates by the Ministry of Justice from the implementation by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee is cumbersome and lacks transparency, predictability and consistency and is bad for consumer claimants, defendants, and the legal professions.’

Issue: 8050 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll