Now that the Jackson Costs Review has jumped back to the top of the agenda, the inevitable frantic lobbying over the proposals has started afresh.
Simon Gibbs proposes a solution to the ATE costs headache
Now that the Jackson Costs Review has jumped back to the top of the agenda, the inevitable frantic lobbying over the proposals has started afresh. One of the first out of the starting blocks was Matthew Amey, director at The Judge defending the current after-the-event (ATE) regime (NLJ, 6 August 2010, p 1094).
The ATE debate is an interesting one from an historical perspective. Lord Justice Jackson wants to end recoverability of ATE premiums. In large part this is because of the perceived excessive and disproportionate amounts now claimed by way of premium. The judiciary has come out strongly in support of his proposals.
The first irony is that it was the judiciary that allowed matters to reach their current critical state. The decision in Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
