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
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
It is over before it began, says Dominic Regan in his latest article for New Law Journal. The speedy, decisive and blunt judgment in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers  EWCA Civ 1537,  All ER (D) 314 (Nov), represents the real implementation of the Jackson reforms. Oh yes we had new words back in April but interpretation is everything. Any doubt should now evaporate.
Contrary to the views expressed by some this case was really nothing to do with budgeting. It was about default and the way that courts should deal with non-compliance. The offending breaches were in the context of the defamation pilot scheme which had been running for years already.
The Master of the Rolls went out of his way to praise the costs judge.
Lord Dyson rightly acknowledged that forgiveness is still available under CPR 3.9, a measure that has been rewritten but not abrogated. The new battleground will be to distinguish minor lapses from major ones as the former ought to be overlooked.
With Mitchell over and the new culture of litigation firmly in place one must appreciate that problems and uncertainty still loom large.
The disclosure report, a sound idea, is in practice harder to complete than a Chinese crossword. It should be ripped up and rewritten from scratch.
Everyone accepts that the Damages Based Agreement Regulations are useless. The inexplicable prohibition on hybrid agreements has stifled the use of an interesting, alternative funding option which is emphatically nothing to do with the hourly rate. Practitioners want commitment from clients and the ability to charge the client something as one goes along should be legitimised. Indeed, the client might be willing to pay so why stop them from entering into such an arrangement?
Many firms have already rightly sensed that the hourly rate is on the way out and the most in demand legal speaker in the world at the moment is Richard Burcher who is giving advice on new, constructive charging options.
At home, no one, not even Lord Justice Jackson, knows how the new proportionality test works. We are, he says, at the mercy of test cases which will give the Court of Appeal the opportunity to create the law. Any paying party would be an idiot not to raise the cry of disproportionality for they have nothing to lose and potentially much to save.
Leading counsel has been asked to advise upon whether the qualified one way costs shifting (QOCS) regulations are inherently unlawful. Take an injury claim where, prior to April 2013, the defendant had secured costs against the claimant. Those costs are now rendered irrecoverable. Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights protects property rights. Does QOCS offend this principle? Mere rules of procedure could be knocked down. We shall see.
Budgeting is the hot topic. Since budgeting is regarded as desirable by those who created it, the current exemptions are indefensible. It should be universal and so unavoidable. Confusion over whether it applies to Pt 8 proceedings should be dealt with in the forthcoming April reforms.
Much thought is presently being applied to repair the black hole in the process. The language of the rule is unequivocal. It is all about what is to be done and to be spent. Those costs already incurred are, for budgeting purposes, water under the bridge. A judge is entitled to record in the narrative of a costs management order his feelings of disgust at the spend to date. Nevertheless, the damage is done. I am also hearing from reliable sources nightmare tales of lengthy delays (even six months) in getting matters listed for directions and budgeting. We can quote the Master of the Rolls in Mitchell saying that overwork is no excuse and delay is intolerable. With respect, the courts must be in the same position as the practitioners who use them. Something needs to be done to eliminate delay in the process wheresoever it might arise.
So, while the Jackson reforms have cleared the first and probably most important hurdle, it is all far from over.
Professor Dominic Regan is a professor at City Law School and columnist for the New Law Journal. He has assisted Lord Justice Jackson & HH Judge Simon Brown QC with costs reform and writes the blog Professor Dominic Regan. This article was first published in the New Law Journal on 8 January 2014.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234