Royal assent for Jackson Bill

The government’s controversial Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill has been granted Royal Assent after a week of ping-pong between the houses.

It has had a controversial passage through Parliament, with the government enduring 14 defeats in votes on proposed amendments in the House of Lords. However, these were reversed in the House of Commons. Former Attorney General Lady Scotland failed in a last-ditch attempt to extend the time limit for evidence in domestic violence claims. Although the vote on her amendment was a draw, the government had the casting vote.

The government made a concession on mesothelioma claims, which will be excluded from the scope of the Act pending further review.

The Act deals with Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals on civil litigation costs, introducing US-style contingency fees for “no win, no fee” cases and banning referral fees for personal injury claims. However, implementing the Jackson reforms may prove problematic.

Francesca Kaye, London Solicitors Litigation Association president, says: “The real issue is what happens next. Now that the Bill has received Royal Assent, the detail of the issues which affect civil litigators will have to be addressed and we will finally begin to see how it is proposed that the Jackson review be implemented in full by rules, regulations and, in due course, judicial decisions.

“There is a real concern that, far from improving access to justice, it will be adversely affected and will result in a significant amount of satellite litigation.”

Writing in the NLJ, Dominic Regan accuses the government of “botching the process” of introducing the reforms.

“My understanding is that the very cornerstone of fast-track change, the introduction of fixed costs, is not going to happen next year,” he writes.

“Sir Rupert was desperate for this because it would impose proportionality upon litigants, or at least what the legislature considered proportionate.”

Regan says the rules committee has agreed a new proportionality test but has refused to produce a practice direction to accompany it. The result, he says, is “there will be a free-for-all and satellite litigation will roar”.

He adds: “The last thing Sir Rupert wants is for his package of proposals to generate the very expensive challenges he has sought to kill off.”