header-logo header-logo

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

Government gives green light to Jackson plan

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll