header-logo header-logo

13 September 2023
Issue: 8040 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Procedure & practice , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Lawyers call for a pause on fixed costs

With less than two weeks to go before the extension of fixed recoverable costs (FRC), costs lawyers have urged a six-month delay on the basis the current plans are ‘piecemeal and unreasonable’.

The FRC extension to cases valued up to £100,000 is due to begin on 1 October. However, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is still consulting on aspects such as whether costs on assessment and certain clinical negligence cases should be included, with any resulting reforms being implemented in April 2024. The Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) warned this six-month hiatus between the reforms going live and further reforms being added would result in a basket of cases where different rules applied.

The ACL also wants clinical negligence excluded from the new rules until the Department of Health and Social Care’s separate FRC scheme for cases worth up to £25,000 has been published.

ACL chair Jack Ridgway said: ‘Irrespective of our opposition to the FRC extension on principle, it is clear that the government’s piecemeal approach to reform is only going to cause more problems than it purports to solve.

‘It fails to give the legal market sufficient time to plan, prepare and adapt to what will be a significant upheaval. The MoJ needs to fix the Solicitors Act 1974 before tipping a new load of cases into the system.’

In August, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil) formally launched judicial review proceedings against the inclusion of clinical negligence claims.

The Bar Council was due to meet with MoJ officials this week about its concerns, namely, it is not possible to recover the advocacy fee for preparation and advice if the case settles or is vacated shortly before trial. Moreover, the fixed advocacy fee has not kept pace with inflation.

Sam Townend KC, vice chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘There are aspects of the reforms that remain unreasonable and arguably irrational.

‘The costs regime should help, not hinder, settlement and getting the backlog down.’

Townend hinted at a potential legal challenge from the Bar Council, stating his hope the government could reflect ‘so we can avoid the need for judicial review’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll