header-logo header-logo

20 April 2015
Issue: 7649 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No new guideline hourly rates

The Master of the Rolls has decided to freeze the guideline hourly rates (GHRs), due to the poor response to its call for evidence. 

Lord Dyson initially said in July that he had no “evidential base” on which to make any changes to the GHRs, but would hold further discussions with the Law Society and government. 

Last week, he announced that these discussions had made no “material change” to the position. The GHRs will therefore remain at their current rates, which were set in 2010.

GHRs help judges assess costs by providing guidelines for the recoverable hourly rate for different grades of fee earner in different regions of England and Wales.

Lord Dyson said: “I am conscious of a number of trends in the legal services market and other factors that are rendering GHRs less and less relevant.” These include advances in technology and business practices; the “ever-increasing sub-specialisation of the law which is seeing the market increasingly dictate rates in some fields (particularly commercial law)”; “the judiciary’s use of proportionality as a driving principle in assessing costs”; and greater familiarity with costs budgeting among judiciary and practitioners alike.

He called for greater use of fixed costs in litigation.

Sue Nash, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, says: “While any decision which gives certainty is to be welcomed, it is unfortunate that the costs committee was unable to fulfill its brief.  

“This was a golden opportunity for the legal profession to help shape the debate about the value of legal services but the outcome was made inevitable given the limited responses to the consultation coupled with the lack of resources afforded to the committee. It is difficult to see what other decision the Master of the Rolls could have taken in the circumstances.

“What will be interesting to see now is whether this will give added impetus to the increasingly wide variety of alternative fee and billing arrangements being entered between solicitors and their clients.”

 

Issue: 7649 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll