header-logo header-logo

Proportionality: an utter mystery?

14 July 2016 / Kerry Underwood
Issue: 7708 / Categories: Features , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll