header-logo header-logo

24 June 2011 / Peter Causton
Issue: 7471 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Courting change

Peter Causton muses over the future of the litigation landscape

Hard on the heels of the Jackson and Young reviews and proposed cuts to the ambit of legal aid, comes another consultation from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ): Solving Disputes in the County Courts: Creating a simpler, quicker and more proportionate system, the responses to which are due in by the end of the month. In addition, the white paper dealing with the implementation of the Jackson reforms was published this week and it is unclear how the changes proposed in the consultation will tie in with this, or how all these ambitious changes will be funded.

If implemented, the proposals outlined in the consultation are likely to be a “double-whammy” for litigators already dealing with the changes to litigation funding being pushed through, including irrecoverability of the conditional fees arrangements uplift, and after-the-event insurance premiums. It is very difficult at this stage to predict exactly what the litigation landscape will look like in five years time.

It is clear from the consultation that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll