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. Jackson Reforms—one year on To tie in with the important April CPR changes, we are delighted to launch our multimedia update on the development and impact of the Jackson reforms over the last 12 months. This was filmed to coincide with the one year anniversary of the implementation of the Jackson Reforms. The panel discuss (1) Litigation Risk Transfer (CFAs, DBAs, ATE and third party funding) (2) Relief from sanctions and proposed changes to Part 3 and costs budgets as well as proposed review of Part 36 and (3) Disclosure development, interaction with costs budgeting and practical implications. The panel consists of Neil Smith: Head of Lexis+® UK Dispute Resolution Group, Keith Levene: Legal Director (Costs Lawyer) at Pinsent Masons, Edward Pepperall QC: St Philips Chambers and Mark Surguy: Partner at Eversheds LLP. See: Jackson Reforms:

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. Warning: if you intend to print the final report it is over 500 pages long. Introduction On 14 January 2010 Jackson LJ published his final report on the review of costs in civil litigation. The report considers how litigation is funded and how costs are incurred, controlled and assessed. Jackson LJ recommends fundamental reforms, tougher enforcement of existing rules and greater awareness on the part of judges, lawyers and litigants. Funding Before litigation starts, there must be an appreciation of how it is to be funded. A review of the legal aid system was outside the remit of the report. However, Jackson LJ does make it clear that he recommends that the current level of legal aid funding should be maintained and that further cuts should be avoided. Litigants increasingly have the benefit of legal

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. NOTE: This Practice Note provides a summary of the impact of the Jackson reforms in the 12 months to 1 April 2014 and does not cover developments since that date. One of the key objectives of the civil litigation costs review (which culminated in the April 2013 Jackson Reforms) was to 'establish the effect case management procedures have on costs and consider whether changes in process and/or procedure could bring about more proportionate costs'. The key case (rather than costs) management procedural aspects which were amended and introduced to try to improve the efficient conduct of litigation and thereby achieve the objective of reducing the costs of civil litigation were to: • enforce stricter compliance with rules, practice directions and court orders • limit the scope of evidence to be put before the court, whether by way of disclosure, factual evidence and/or expert evidence, so as to ensure it is reasonable, necessary and proportionate The table below sets

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and for historical reference only. What we have learnt—detailed assessment Some of the more interesting judgments have been those where the courts have had to consider how different rules within the CPR interact. These judgments emphasise the need to consider not only the CPR provision you might think is on point but also others which may have an impact. This was seen in the decision in Baker which considered the interplay between CPR 47.9(3), CPR PD 47, para 8.1, CPR 3.1(2)(a), CPR 2.11 and CPR 3.9. CPR 47.9 provides that the period for serving the points of dispute is 21 days after service of the notice of commencement of detailed assessment. CPR PD 47, para 8.1 provides that the 21 day period may be either extended or shortened by agreement (CPR 2.11) or by the court (CPR 3.1(2)(a)) and there is no requirement for such an agreement or order to be obtained prior to the expiry of the 21 day period. However, if the

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is for historical purposes only. The 1 April 2013 saw the introduction of a new approach to the costs management of litigation in England and Wales with costs estimates, in their old form, being abolished and costs budgeting being introduced. This cornerstone of the Jackson Reforms sought to ensure that courts could exercise control over the costs being expended by parties during litigation and in doing so ensure that they were reasonable and proportionate not just as to the value of the case but also that the court time was being used proportionately between all court users. Despite the time and effort put into the Jackson Reforms it was acknowledged early on that the rules regarding exemptions needed to be considered. A consultation has resulted in amendment to the costs budgeting exemption which will come into force on 22 April 2014 together with other amendments to the costs budgeting provisions. These changes are currently in a draft SI which requires the approval of the Lord Chancellor and

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is for historical purposes only. 1 April 2013 saw reforms to many aspects of litigation funding but what has this meant in practice? The implemented changes involve the sharing of risk through a number of different entities such as solicitors' firms, clients, litigation funders or insurers. The key aspect is how these different entities work together to provide parties with the ability to fund claims they wish to bring. In this Practice Note we consider each of the funding methods available and look at the impact of the changes especially in light of their introduction at the same time as cuts to legal aid; this simultaneous cut in legal aid had not been envisaged by Lord Jackson when producing his Final Costs Report. This Practice Note considers the impact of the funding reforms from a number of different perspectives. What we have learnt—conditional fee agreements The relevant provisions which brought in CFA changes were set out in: • LASPO 2012, s 44 deals with CFAs, in particular

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is for historical purposes only. To assist those looking to see the development of the application of proportionality we have added the date of the judgment after the judgment citation. The new CPR provisions Two new provisions were added into the CPR rules to deal with the issue of proportionality. They were (with emphasis added): CPR 1.1—overriding objective: 1)     These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. (2)     Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable— (a)     ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing; (b)     saving expense; (c)     dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate— (i)     to the amount of money involved; (ii)     to the importance of the case; (iii)     to the complexity of the issues; and (iv)     to the financial position of each party; (d)     ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; (e)

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 [Archived], 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

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. Costs budgeting This is a cornerstone of the reforms in seeking to get a control on the costs being expended during litigation and to ensure that they are reasonable and proportionate. So what has happened in the past three months to assist practitioners in understanding how this will all work in practice? Exemptions—will they remain in place? The first thing to note is that the court specific exemptions have been under fire since before the reforms even came into force. A sub-committee of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has now been set up to consult on whether the costs budgeting exemptions should remain in place. The sub-committee, following a preliminary meeting, agreed there was a need to consult on this issue and a report is due to be made to the full CPR Committee in

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note explains the changes to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013, SI 2013/262 in respect of environmental judicial review claims under the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). The amendments made by SI 2013/262 (known as the Jackson Reforms) came into force on 1 April 2013. This Practice Note covers the new rules on costs, new practice directions and new Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review (JR). New rules on costs and new practice directions The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013, SI 2013/262, came into force on 1 April 2013. The amendments made sweeping changes to a variety of procedures, including new rules for protective costs orders (PCOs) in environmental judicial review claims under the Aarhus Convention, see News Analysis: The Aarhus Convention after Jackson. There are also new rules relating to interim injunctions and Aarhus claims in new CPR PD 25A.5.1B. Where

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.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Jagger and others v AXA Insurance UK plc [2023] Lexis Citation 1661 the court found that it was an abuse of process to rely on the evidence of an expert whose independence was in question, as well as issuing the claims for significantly less than they were later amended to (and where the increased court fee was not paid until an unless order was issued). However, this abuse of process did not result in the striking out of the claims. Tim Riordan, partner, Daniel Saul, associate and Layla Todd, professional support lawyer, CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang, analyse this case.