header-logo header-logo

Solicitors prefer costs management to fixed recoverable costs

12 April 2017
Issue: 7742 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Costs management has had a negative impact on litigation but it is still preferable to fixed recoverable costs.

That’s the opinion of the majority of personal injury and commercial litigation solicitors at top 200 firms, according to The Costs Management Survey 2017 by Just Costs Solicitors. Some 90% of personal injury solicitors and 78% of commercial litigation solicitors prefer costs management to fixed recoverable costs.

Phil Bradbury, head of costs management at Just Costs, said: “There’s no love or affection for the process, but it’s better the devil you know.” He said the survey results had also thrown up concerns among the majority of respondents about “a lack of consistency in the judicial approach towards costs management”.

“The lack of guidance as to what proportionate costs means and the fact many judges are still unclear on what basis they are supposed to review the parties’ budgets only serves to heighten their concerns,” he said.

The survey highlighted differing views between the 146 personal injury solicitors and 155 commercial litigators participating about their clients’ preferences. Some 65% of the former said their clients would plump for costs management, while 57% of the latter said their clients would prefer fixed costs.

Bradbury said: “Litigators feel their commercial clients would like to know the risk of financial exposure through involvement in a dispute and potential litigation, whether claiming or defending the matter. 

“The knowledge of a fixed fee would provide clarity and reassurance within the litigation and dispute resolution process, enabling them to make a decision about the best way ahead from the outset.”

Lord Justice Jackson, currently reviewing the case for fixed costs, has recommended extending fixed costs to all civil claims, including personal injury cases up to a value of £250,000. Opponents have warned this could stop solicitors taking on complex low-value cases.

See Dominic Regan interview Jackson LJ on the progress of his review in an exclusive NLJ webinar here.

Issue: 7742 / Categories: Legal News
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