Lord Justice Jackson also recommended that the Government pause its planning of the introduction of
a fixed fee regime for clinical negligence claims, as he believed that introducing a separate costs regime for clinical negligence would lead to a «Balkanisation» of fees for different types of claims.
«The success and fairness of
any fixed fee regime will need to reflect the variety, complexity and intrinsic cost of running many of these types of claims.
Other issues raised were with fees, with some suggesting there should be a «
fixed fees regime», and also fixed timescales.
He said that a reason behind extending
the fixed fees regime was that the experience of practitioners with the fixed fee regime in low - value claims had been «satisfactory» and that the new costs management system (which had previously been introduced by Jackson) was placing the courts under strain.
Not exact matches
If a statute allows for tribunal costs, a
regime of
fixed tribunal
fees in advance has significant merits over a
regime that allows — and effectively requires — a losing respondent to dredge through the actual reimbursable disbursements of panellists, for example, to ensure reasonableness.
The Government have laid several regulations introducing the new
regime of
fixed fees.
In particular, the new
fees will act as a baseline for providers, so that they are able to bid competitively using the knowledge and discipline gained under a
fixed or graduated
fee regime.»