header-logo header-logo

03 April 2019
Issue: 7835 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Ministers set out fixed costs proposals

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‘The proposed figures for the fixed costs adopted by the Ministry of Justice in the consultation are nearly two years out of date and were based on just one law firm’s sample of cases, where it acted for the defendants.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

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll