Jackson reforms six months on [Archived]
Jackson reforms six months on [Archived]

The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Jackson reforms six months on [Archived]
  • Overall approach by the courts to the Jackson reforms: NEW
  • Proportionality: NEW
  • Costs budgeting: SOME NEW CONTENT
  • Updated: Exemptions—will they remain in place?
  • NEW: are court fees excluded from the costs budget?
  • Does costs budgeting apply to clinical negligence claims?
  • Costs budgeting—what guidance has been provided?
  • Cost orders: SOME NEW CONTENT
  • New: Interim costs payments
  • More...

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published.

For those who have previously considered the Practice Note: Jackson reforms three months on, we have highlighted the new content added in to take account of the information added between 1 July 2013 and 30 September.

Overall approach by the courts to the Jackson reforms: NEW

In the reported cases, the courts are continuing to take a strict approach when dealing with parties that have failed to comply with CPR provisions. This was summed up by Jeremy Richardson J in Baker where he noted that there is now a much greater emphasis on compliance in all courts. His view was that rules are to be 'firmly and sensibly applied': 'However, all parties and the wider litigation world should be aware that all courts at all levels are now required to take a very much stricter view of the failure by parties to comply with directions, particularly where the failure to comply is likely to lead to a waste of the limited resources made available to those with cases to litigate.' See: Practical considerations re-emphasised (Baker v Hallam)

Proportionality: NEW

Another cornerstone of the reforms but just what does it mean?

Popular documents