Jackson Reforms: Update Three Months On DISCLOSURE

Jackson Reforms: Update Three Months On DISCLOSURE

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.

In the next in a continuing series of posts highlighting the main areas of the update we turn to disclosure.

Practitioners need to be clear about what type of disclosure is appropriate. Standard disclosure may not be the default position but there is an apparent inconsistency between what is required under Rule 31.5 (3) (d), the costs estimate to be provided in Form N263 and Form H. In addition, practitioners should ensure that the estimate of costs in the costs budget is done on the basis of the type of disclosure considered to be the most appropriate and set out in the assumptions so that you have a platform to seek amendment of costs for the disclosure phase.

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
Case Management


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.

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:
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 Resolution 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.