In his second instalment on the guideline hourly rates report, Julian Chamberlayne tackles regional issues, revised guides & more
- The final report of the Civil Justice Council working group on guideline hourly rates: responses from paying parties, regional issues, and the revised guide for judges conducting cost assessments.
In the first part of this series, I reported on the decision of the Master of the Rolls to implement the recommendations in the final report of the Civil Justice Council (CJC) working group on guideline hourly rates (GHR). I also summarised key themes from the receiving parties who responded to the interim report and how they may affect the next CJC review, which will take place within two years.
In this second part, I turn to the responses from paying parties, some regional issues, and the revised guide for judges conducting cost assessments.
Paying party responses
The main theme from the paying parties was to suggest that the CJC should have reverted to an expense
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
