header-logo header-logo

Government gives green light to Jackson plan

18 November 2010
Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

Government gives green light to Jackson plan

The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation paper formally backing Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals for civil litigation funding reform.

The proposals, set out in Lord Jackson’s report in January, include abolishing recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums so that claimants have an interest in controlling their costs. General damages payments would be increased by ten per cent to balance the impact of this, and the increase would apply whether or not the case proceeded to court.

Contingency fees, under which lawyers take a proportion of the claimant’s damages as fees, would be permitted. Personal injury claimants would be protected from paying a winning defendant’s costs through qualified one-way costs shifting. The prescribed recoverable rate for litigants in person, typically individuals appearing before the small claims court, would  rise from £9.25 to £20.

The MoJ launched the paper, Proposals for Reform of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales, alongside its proposals for legal aid reforms this week.

In their foreword, the Lord Chancellor Ken Clarke and Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said costs in civil cases had “frequently become disproportionate and unaffordable to many individual litigants and businesses—particularly small businesses”.

The proposals were underpinned by four principles, they said, “that necessary claims can be brought; that reasonable claims should be settled as early as possible; that unnecessary or frivolous claims are deterred; and that as a result costs overall become more proportionate”.

However, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) warned the proposals would “hit the weakest the hardest”.

APIL president, Muiris Lyons said: “No win, no fee has helped provide access to justice for injured people who cannot otherwise afford it.

“The proposal to increase damages to offset the effect of this move is a white elephant for two reasons: first, damages are now too low in any event, as, in most categories, they have never been increased in line with Law Commission recommendations; and second, the proposed increase will not always cover the costs to be borne by the injured person in any event, leaving him with a shortfall in his damages.

“Those who will be affected most are likely to be people suffering serious or catastrophic injury, where the damages involved are often very high.”

Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
back-to-top-scroll