header-logo header-logo

18 July 2009 / Mike Willis , Naomi Park
Issue: 7380 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Lean litigation

Mike Willis & Naomi Park hope Jackson LJ’s drive for costs reform will encourage leaner & cleaner procedures

The procedural steps and options for reform being contemplated and examined by Lord Justice Jackson, as part of his wide-ranging review of costs in civil litigation, merit careful reflection by all legal professional advisers in civil contentious business. This is not only for their practical implications if procedural rules are relaxed or altered, but also for the new or additional civil liability risks and dilemmas they may create.
Two areas most prominently in need of re-examination and prospective reform, and illustrative of the problems, are:
pre-action procedures, now well embedded since the 1999 Woolf reforms; and
disclosure of evidence, where the proliferation of electronic records in place of paper documents has created many legal and disciplinary, as well as practical, problems.

Pre-action costs

Lord Justice Jackson has given some space in his preliminary report to exploring how and why pre-action costs are incurred and the devices currently available to parties to keep them in check. There

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll