Jackson Reforms: Three Months On PROPORTIONALITY

Jackson Reforms: Three Months On PROPORTIONALITY

Three months have now passed since the implementation of a major tranche of the Jackson Reforms. The LexisNexis Dispute Resolution team has been looking at the key court decisions to date and assessing what assistance these cases can provide in interpreting the new provisions. In particular, attention is drawn to areas where practitioners need to exercise care, at least until a binding Court of Appeal decision is in place.

Our last post in the series of issues which have been raised and considered in the update is that of proportionality.

A key area of the reforms, but on which the CPR gives no guidance. So far, the court has provided little guidance either, although the case of JW Spear v Zynga implies that although ‘proportionality’ has been added to the overriding objective, the court must still also provide a just result to comply with the overriding objective.

We are interested to hear your own experiences as well. Please leave us a comment.

 

You can read the rest of the series Jackson Reforms: Update Three Months On by clicking the links below:

Costs Budgeting
Wasting Costs
Funding
Case Management
Disclosure

The full content of this update is available to subscribers of LexisPSL. If you are not a subscriber, please click here to find out more and to access a free trial.

Subscription Form

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login

About the author:

Janna is a dispute resolution lawyer. She deals primarily with cross border issues and is active in the work being undertaken in relation to the implications of Brexit for Dispute Resolutions lawyers. Janna also heads up a LexisNexis costs team bringing together expertise from across the company to deal with the costs issues facing the profession.