Jackson Reforms: Update Three Months On FUNDING

Jackson Reforms: Update Three Months On FUNDING

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.

Continuing our series of posts highlighting the main areas of the update we now consider funding.

This is an area which has caused much consternation amongst practitioners. In fact, many are refusing to use the new Damages Based Agreements until the underlying regulations have been reviewed and amended.

Many potential claimants are struggling to bring claims due to the changes in funding arrangements with some firms turning to innovative approaches; in Jeffrey Jones v SoS for Energy and Climate Change it was argued that the firm of solicitors should be viewed as a ‘bank’ rather than a ‘non party’ funding the litigation.

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

You can read the first in the series on Costs Budgeting here and the second on Wasting Costs here.


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.