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

Quillon Law—Neil Dooley

Quillon Law—Neil Dooley

Disputes firm expands fraud and investigations practice with partner hire

Charles Russell Speechlys—Vadim Romanoff

Charles Russell Speechlys—Vadim Romanoff

Firm strengthens corporate tax and incentives team with partner hire

Burges Salmon—Gary Delderfield & Alec Bennett

Burges Salmon—Gary Delderfield & Alec Bennett

Partner and senior associate join pensions team

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold dives into the quirks of civil practice, from the Court of Appeal’s fierce defence of form N510 to fresh reminders about compliance and interest claims, in this week's Civil Way
back-to-top-scroll