Lord Justice Jackson has published his interim report (update 14th Jan 2010 : the final report is now available) on civil justice costs, I haven’t read it all yet! The chapters dealing specifically with personal injury litigation costs can be found starting part 6 of the report.
Lord Justice Jackson will now go on to Phase 2 of his mammoth undertaking and has asked for comments of a number of specific proposals:
Increase the small claims limit :
1.4 Proposal. It has been suggested by some that the upper limit for personal injury cases on the small claims track should be substantially increased above £1,000.4 By increasing the upper limit for personal injury cases on the small claims track from £1,000 to £5,000 (the normal upper limit for small claims), a significant number of personal injury cases would be taken out of the ambit of the fast track and would become subject to the small claims track regime. This proposal is not without controversy.
Remove claimant’s liability for costs in unsuccessful cases :
The proposal which I raise for consideration during Phase 2 is whether it would be more cost effective to remove the claimant’s liability for costs in respect of unsuccessful cases. I shall refer to the claimant and defendant as “C” and “D” respectively.
The proposal for consideration is as follows:
(i) In cases which C wins, C recovers costs on the same basis as present.
(ii) In cases which C loses, the court makes no order for costs.
(iii) Because C is not at risk of an adverse costs order, he does not need to insure against such risk. Therefore that element of the ATE premium is no longer charged.
In addition he is inviting comments on possibility of reducing the transaction costs of personal injury compensation claims. He deals with this in chapter 26. He refers to the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ (now the Ministry of Justice) review of the process for lower value claims and invites further comment :
During Phase 2 of the Costs Review I look forward to receiving comments from all concerned on three matters:
(i) How the proposed new claims process would be affected, if any of the reforms canvassed in this report were to be adopted.
(ii) How the new claims process might be built upon, in order to embrace all personal injury claims within the fast track limits.
(iii) Any other constructive suggestions for co-operation between claimant and defendant solicitors, which might facilitate the swift and fair resolution of that vast mass of low value personal injury claims where (a) there is no defence on liability and (b) quantifying damages is straightforward.
Lord Justice Jackson noted :
A major part of civil litigation costs is attributable to personal injury litigation. Many personal injury claims (particularly at the lower end) are relatively straightforward matters, which ought to be capable of fair resolution without the defendant’s insurers paying out sums to lawyers and experts in costs comparable to what they pay out in damages to claimants.
I like many others will be contributing to the phase 2 review. What will you be recommending? As always submit your comment below.
Fill in the form below to sign up to my monthly newsletter:
Related posts:
Dear Sirs,
Having read this article I strongly agree with the thought that solicitors costs have become out of proportion with the damages awarded.
I personally act for a small firm who see cases where the claimant has been awarded damages and the costs have been up to three times the level of those damages.
This is a cost on all of us irrespective in which sector of business worked. It is about time that certain solicitors be stopped from racking up these costs – sometimes even bullying claimants to keep the case going in order for the solicitors to make vast profits.