header-logo header-logo

Lawyers call for a pause on fixed costs

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll