Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
In the third instalment of our series on how the Jackson reforms have affected different parts of the profession, we now hear from a costs lawyer. Andrew McAulay, costs and litigation funding manager at Clarion Solicitors, explains how litigation has changed under the Jackson regime.
(how the Jackson reforms have affected solicitors and barristers in the last year)
We are always interested in hearing your views and thoughts – please do let us know whether you agree, or have a different perspective.
The Jackson Reforms have affected my day-to-day life in the following main areas:
We are now as busy as ever. Costs budgeting has resulted in a surge of additional work. We have had to put a lot of effort into creating new precedents and learning about costs budgeting in a very short space of time. The summer of 2013 was very difficult as this is when most cases required costs budgets to be prepared for the first time and with judges new to costs budgeting it was a difficult and challenging period. We are now much more comfortable with costs budgeting. We work with over 50 law firms nationwide and are starting to see regular trends and patterns in terms of estimating future costs with those firms. This will enable us to help firms budget more accurately as time goes on.
Everyone in the profession is concerned since Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd  EWCA Civ 1526,  All ER (D) 314 (Nov) ruling. For the legal costs world, it had a great impact as costs work was traditionally fairly low risk but Mitchell turned that upside down. We are now much more focused on efficiency, diary management and reviewing deadlines to ensure we do not fall foul of any deadlines set by the Court or by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132 (CPR).
Costs budgeting has been a bit of a sticking point due to the inconsistency of the judges. Some deal with it and some don’t. Some deal with it but don’t have a clue what to do. You just don't know what you are going to get.
We had one matter where the parties were ordered to file and serve costs together with additional information in relation to costs incurred pre-action and in respect of issues or statements of case costs. We spent a lot of money preparing the budget and associated documents. We turned up to the case management conferences (CMC) and the judge asked why we had prepared a costs budget and we explained we had been ordered to prepare one. The judge said that was an error and he wasn’t dealing with costs budgeting. I estimate the costs of that entire process were around. £6,000 on both sides.
Costs budgeting is good for clients if law firms do it properly, such as engaging with the client in the process. This way clients know what the litigation will cost them and can tailor it to their requirements (if they want a QC or want the Grade A to do all the work).
Another sticking point is, since Mitchell, defendants are more awkward and are trying to pick up on any delay or issue they can. The ruling has caused satellite litigation. Objections to relief applications are common even where it is very clear that the breach is trivial. I think the ruling has created a barrier between parties with common sense going out of the window.
I would like to see changes in the following:
It is clear costs budgeting is here to stay so I expect that to increase and the process to improve as judges get more used to it. We should have more case law giving guidance about topics such as proportionality, relief and extensions of time, which will greatly help lawyers. We should start to see things generally settle down with lawyers getting used to the rule changes and new procedures. Nobody likes change and I think that was a big factor in the uproar from 1 April 2013.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
First published on Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution on 1 April 2014. Click here for a free one week trial of Lexis®PSL.
0330 161 1234