header-logo header-logo

02 February 2012
Issue: 7499 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Jackson delayed to 2013

Update on timetable for Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Wallace, the Advocate General for Scotland, has confirmed that, subject to Parliamentary approval, the implementation of the Jackson reforms will be postponed until April 2013. They were originally due to come into effect in October this year.

In a statement in the House of Lords on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill this week, Lord Wallace said: “These proposals will require the making of new regulations and changes to the Civil Procedure Rules.

“We wish to make sure that we get the details of these regulations and rules right, and that will inevitably take some time. We are also conscious that stakeholders will need appropriate notice of when the changes will be implemented and how the details will affect them.”

The Jackson reforms would impose a 25% cap on uplift fees, add an extra 10% onto damages, and put an end to lawyers being able to recover success fees and after-the-event premiums from losing defendants.

The legal aid provisions of the Bill have already been postponed to April 2013.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We are committed to reforming the ‘no-win, no-fee’ system so that legal costs for reasonable compensation claims will be more proportionate, and avoidable claims will be deterred from going to court.

“This will help us to move away from the current unacceptable situation where, for example, the NHS paid £200m to claimants’ lawyers for compensation cases in 2010-11—around three times more than it paid its own lawyers.

“This will require changes to legal rules and regulations and we want to give sufficient time to get the complex details right. We are also conscious that legal businesses will need sufficient time to plan for the changes, alongside other forthcoming regulatory and funding changes to the industry.” 

The delay has been welcomed by legal commentators. NLJ columnist, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School, says: "The postponement is welcome. It is essential, given the enormity of the reforms, that measures are thoroughly prepared. The current Part 36 mess is due to implementation with undue haste in 2007."

Issue: 7499 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll