header-logo header-logo

01 July 2011 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7472 / Categories: Opinion , Costs
printer mail-detail

Here it comes!

Dominic Regan dissects a turgid Bill to discover the essence of Jackson

By the time that you read this the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will already have had its second reading in the House of Commons. The indecent haste is explained by money. As a perpetual defendant in all sorts of costs bearing claims, the state will find itself better off as a result of changing the costs rules. The ponderous title gives no clue to the profound changes to civil procedure contained within.

The essence of Jackson is found in cl 41 to 44 with Pt 36 reform lurking under
cl 51. What precisely is coming?

Clause 41 ends the recoverability of success fees and places a cap on the amount the legal representative can recoup from the damages recovered from his own client, who now becomes liable to pay the uplift. The measure will also limit the categories of damages from which the deduction can be made. Sir Rupert

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll