header-logo header-logo

Ministers set out fixed costs proposals

03 April 2019
Issue: 7835 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
Controlling costs should be top priority, lawyers say

Lawyers have given a cautious response to the launch of a consultation into fixed recoverable costs (FRC) in cases worth £25,000–£100,000.

FRC would also be extended to all cases on the fast-track worth up to £25,000, and a new process and FRC regime would be introduced for noise induced hearing loss cases.

FRC were first implemented for road traffic accident cases up to £10,000 damages in 2010. In November 2016, the government and senior judges backed extending FRC, and Sir Rupert Jackson was commissioned to develop proposals. Sir Rupert published a report in 2017, advocating extending FRC.

Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School, an NLJ columnist and adviser to Sir Rupert, says: ‘I have it on the highest authority that the ministry is keen to implement change.

‘It will not stop there. If the model works up to £100,000 the temptation will be to raise the ceiling to £250,000’.

However, the Association of Costs Lawyers called for more data and evidence. A spokesman said: ‘The proposed figures for the fixed costs adopted by the Ministry of Justice in the consultation are nearly two years out of date and were based on just one law firm’s sample of cases, where it acted for the defendants.

‘The government needs a much more rigorous statistical base if it is to widen the use of fixed costs, and also needs to commit to regularly reviewing and updating them.’

Brett Dixon, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said: ‘Attention must be on helping to control costs, including any recoverable costs of those representing the wrongdoer based on the work they do, rather than limiting what is recoverable from those responsible for putting the injured person back on track.’ 

The ‘Fixed recoverable costs consultation’, which opened last week, closes at one minute to midnight on 6 June 2019. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll