The development of the J - Codes (and the new model - form - bill - of - costs when it is developed), is a response to a review of
civil litigation costs in England and Wales, conducted by Lord Justice Jackson (a very senior judge in the judiciary).
Jackson LJ gave a ringing endorsement of ADR in his final report
on civil litigation costs earlier this month, but stopped short of advocating any rule changes.
Indeed, Sir Rupert Jackson noted the problem of front - loading of costs in his 2010 Review of
Civil Litigation Costs Final Report, emphasising that commercial solicitors and counsel, including Commercial Court judges, saw these protocols as unwelcome generators of additional costs and delay.
The general background to the case is the balanced package of measures recommended in the final report of the Review of
Civil Litigation Costs produced by Lord Justice Jackson in January 2010, and due to be implemented in large part in April 2013.
Looking ahead Although some moderation in civil litigation claims costs can be expected over time with the recent changes to Rule 48, the continued relationship
between civil litigation costs and premium revenue by lawyers» primary area of practice will need to be monitored to determine whether any further action should be taken on this category in future years.
In Lord Justice Jackson's preliminary report
on civil litigation costs, a whole chapter is devoted to e-disclosure, and the huge costs that can be incurred, particularly in very large cases.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has undermined the impact of Lord Justice Jackson's report
into civil litigation costs, a leading commentator claims.
Review of
Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, December 2009).
It will be remembered that in his final report he proposed such an approach for cases worth up to just # 25,000 (Review of
Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, January 2010).
Instead, fixed recoverable costs will apply to all claims valued up to # 25,000 (the fast - track), and to certain cases worth up to # 100,000 that can be tried in three days or less with no more than two experts on each side (the intermediate track), Jackson LJ revealed this week in his long - awaited review of civil costs, Review of
Civil Litigation Costs: Supplemental Report — Fixed Recoverable Costs by Lord Justice Jackson.
In his review of
civil litigation costs, Lord Justice Jackson emphasised the potential for the use of BTE.
Three years ago I warned in these pages that the broad recommendations of the Jackson Review of
Civil Litigation Costs would be delivered («Access all areas», 160 NLJ 7408, p 366).
Recommendation 87 of Jackson LJ's Final Report of the Review of
Civil Litigation Costs, said the Master of the Rolls should designate two Lord Justices to consider issues concerning the Civil Procedure Rules arising from the reforms.
However, Jackson LJ pointed at CFAs as being one of the contributing factors to the increase in
civil litigation costs; 100 % success fees are not unusual, especially in traditionally more risky litigation such as defamation actions (such costs are the subject of a separate consultation).
Lord Justice Jackson's review of
civil litigation costs will have a significant impact on the funding of commercial litigation claims with effect from April 2013.
In a similar vein, U.K. blogger Charon QC recently reported on the «Review of
Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report» by Lord Justice Rupert Jackson.
Lord Justice Jackson, who led
the Civil Litigation Costs Review published in 2010 that led to the reforms, approved of litigation funding as an option for funding cases, and recommended self - regulation for the industry.
Young Legal Aid Lawyers (YLAL) has today responded to Lord Justice Jackson's preliminary report on
civil litigation costs, expressing dismay at its proposal to introduce fixed costs in certain housing cases.
He was President of the Law Society and chaired the Civil Justice Councel working parties which developed the Code of Conduct for third party litigation funders and the implementation of contingency fees recommended by Lord Justice Jackson's report on
civil litigation costs.
Lord Justice Jackson broadly approved Litigation Funding in his Review of
Civil Litigation Costs, saying «[litigation] funding is beneficial and should be supported».
Lord Justice Jackson, who led
the Civil Litigation Costs Review published in 2010, recommended self regulation for the litigation funding industry, by way of a voluntary code of conduct.
The Code sets out the standards by which all full funder members of the ALF must abide, and meets each of the key concerns set out by Lord Justice Jackson in
his Civil Litigation Costs Review.
The issue has now come to the fore in the debate on Lord Justice Jackson's review of
civil litigation costs.
DBAs, recommended by Lord Justice Jackson in his review of
civil litigation costs, were introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in 2013.
In fact, what a welcome I had when last week, Lord Justice Jackson published his preliminary report on the review of
civil litigation costs.
Lord Justice Jackson recommended the exemption when he wrote his review of
civil litigation costs.
In its response to
Civil litigation costs review: Jackson LJ's Preliminary Report, the Bar Council submitted that funding issues should be the subject of separate consultation.
In some areas of
civil litigation costs are disproportionate and impede access to justice.
Lord Justice Jackson's reforms to
civil litigation costs, which took effect in April, place a higher emphasis on the quality and value for money of experts.
In his final report (Review of
Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report 2010), Lord Justice Jackson recommended that there should be a pilot scheme to assess the extent to which the «hot - tubbing» technique could be used successfully in the English civil courts.
The aim of Lord Justice Jackson's ongoing review of
civil litigation costs is «to promote access to justice at proportionate cost».