Kerry Underwood discusses proportionality in costs
- Until we have contingency fees and/or fixed fees in all cases we have a problem.
- That problem is that no one has ever defined what “proportionate” means.
Section 4 of the Distress Act 1267, still in force, provides: “Moreover, Distress shall be reasonable, and not too great” which shows that 749 years ago no one could define proportionality. That remains the case.
Lord Justice Jackson, speaking on 23 May 2016, recognized this and referring to the factors in CPR 44.3(5) – set out below – said: “The best way to satisfy the requests for clarification is to convert the five identified factors into hard figures: in other words, to create a fixed costs regime… those seeking certainty about how rule 44.3 (5) will apply are ‘seeking something akin to a fixed fee regime for all cases’.”
He proposed that for each financial level of claim - £25,000.00 - £50,000.00, £50,000.00 - £100,000.00 etc, a figure
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
