header-logo header-logo

Satellite litigation warning as FRC regime begins

04 October 2023
Issue: 8043 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail
Lawyers have called for ‘urgent’ clarity on fixed recoverable costs (FRC), as the much-anticipated regime came into effect

The regime, in place from 1 October, applies to most civil claims valued up to £100,000, with exceptions such as clinical negligence claims below £25,000, mesothelioma claims, abuse cases, claims against the police involving an intentional or reckless tort, and relief or remedy in relation to the Human Rights Act. Housing cases are exempt for two years.

Judges will have discretion to exclude complex cases valued under £100,000.

Changes to Part 36 offers aimed at encouraging parties to settle at an earlier stage have also come into force.

However, Law Society President Lubna Shuja said: ‘There are too many unanswered questions around how the regime will work in practice.

‘The government’s intention with these reforms has been to provide certainty for litigation costs, but the lack of clarity emerging from the reforms will surely lead to years of satellite litigation. At the very least, the government needs to provide further guidance in support of the rules.

‘FRCs are not the same as fixed incurred costs. To set FRCs at levels that do not accurately reflect the broad spectrum of civil litigation, increases the risk of recoverable costs for some cases not being sufficient in relation to the actual costs incurred.’

Michael Young, legal director in professional negligence at Lime Solicitors, urged solicitors to make sure they give clear and prompt advice to clients on the changes to avoid becoming liable for professional negligence.

Young said: ‘It is vital to be ready, as failing to advise with the changes in mind could leave the profession facing a professional negligence time bomb.

‘If solicitors fail to advise their clients on these new changes, they could find themselves liable when claimants end up recovering less costs than they, entirely justifiably, believe they are entitled to.’

He also expressed concern the new regulations ‘would in theory reward a claimant for pushing through to court proceedings instead of exploring a pre-action settlement in greater depth.

‘This outcome would not serve the interests of either claimants or defendants’.

Issue: 8043 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll