Jackson unreformed—gaps in the fixed costs regime

Table of contents

• What was the recommendation and how was it envisaged it would work in practice?
• What was the thinking behind the recommendation? What difficulty with the existing law or practice in this area was it seeking to address?
• What were the reasons it was not included in the April 2013 reforms? Is it likely to be introduced and, if so, when?
• Has the introduction of any of the Jackson Reforms or other factors affected whether the recommendation is still or more necessary?
• Do you have any predictions or suggestions for future developments in this area?

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: Following the two-year anniversary of the April 2013 Jackson Reforms, Andrew Parker, partner and head of strategic litigation at DAC Beachcroft and assessor to Lord Justice Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs, examines the gaps in the current fixed costs regime.