header-logo header-logo

Jackson: decline & fall

02 April 2015 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7647 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail
nlj_7647_regan_cover

Dominic Regan expresses dismay over the MoJ’s undermining of the Jackson Report

Sir Rupert Jackson kept his end of an onerous bargain. His remit was to regularise the litigation process, enabling litigants to secure justice at proportionate cost. His final report on publication was described as masterful by Lord Neuberger and the then Lord Chief Justice gave it his total support.

What went wrong? Plenty. The culprit was not the legal profession, which did not like some changes. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to keep faith. In some areas it did the absolute opposite of what Jackson had recommended after a hefty two years of enquiry and reflection.

Most damaging reform

The single most damaging reform, which has meant that the litigation process is now worse than before the 2013 changes, has been the outrageous hike in court fees. The judiciary spoke with one voice in condemning the changes. The MoJ had decided fees were to rise and that was that. Incalculable damage has been done. If one thinks of the issue fee

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

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The threat of section 21 ‘no fault’ eviction was banished this week, after the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 passed into law
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
back-to-top-scroll