header-logo header-logo

Retiring Jackson assesses his work

07 March 2018
Issue: 7784 / Categories: Legal News , Jackson
printer mail-detail

Plea for restraint in setting court fees had ‘fallen on deaf ears’

In a speech given just 48 hours before his retirement, Jackson LJ, the architect of civil justice costs reforms introduced in April 2013 (known as ‘the Jackson reforms’), reviewed whether he had ‘achieved anything of lasting value’.

‘To spend ten years reforming the rules of procedure in an effort to reduce litigation costs is about as unglamorous as it gets,’ he told his audience at Cambridge Law Faculty. Nor did he ever expect it would make lawyers, who ‘particularly dislike anyone meddling with costs’, like him.

However, he concluded: ‘Many of the causes of excessive costs have been eliminated and significant improvements have been made… most of the reforms have worked well, but a few have not.’

Firmer enforcement of rules and court orders ‘now works well after a particularly bumpy start’, he said. Initially, courts ‘went over the top’ but they have been ‘striking the right balance’ since the Denton v White case.

The replacement of standard disclosure with a menu of possible disclosure orders, ‘has not worked well’, he said, mainly because people ‘take little notice’ of the new rule. Damages based agreements remain largely untried.

Incurred costs are difficult because they can’t constrain costs previously incurred, and primary legislation is necessary to resolve this, he said.

On calls for more guidance on the proportionality rule, he said he expected a ‘cluster of test cases’ at the Court of Appeal but this had not happened.

‘The profession is becoming impatient,’ he said.

‘The remedy lies in their own hands. The Court of Appeal can only decide the cases which come before it.’

Finally, Jackson LJ said he advocated against further legal aid cuts and was dismayed when ‘swingeing cutbacks’ were introduced on the same day as his reforms. Likewise, his plea for restraint in setting court fees had ‘fallen on deaf ears’.

Writing in this week’s NLJ, Edwin Coe senior partner and NLJ consultant editor David Greene asks whether Jackson LJ’s retirement marks ‘the end of the policy making judge’.

Issue: 7784 / Categories: Legal News , Jackson
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll