The government has rejected Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals for a costs council despite senior judges calling for the end of the hourly rate.
Justice minister Helen Grant said yesterday that the Advisory Committee on Civil Costs (ACCC) set up in 2007 to advise on costs issues was to be disbanded with its responsibilities transferred to the Civil Justice Council.
There is to be no costs council, she added, with the new sub-committee’s standing role limited to a review of the guideline hourly rate.
Grant told Parliament yesterday: “Other fixed costs will remain for the Lord Chancellor to consider in the first instance. However, there may be other costs issues on which the Lord Chancellor and judiciary would welcome advice from the new sub-committee from time to time.”
In May the then Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger urged the government to establish a costs council to review litigation billing methods.
Neuberger, who has since been promoted to president of the Supreme Court, told the Association of Costs Lawyers: “Only a costs council canprovide the necessary, active, expert scrutiny of litigation costs at the macro level” (16 May 2012).
He added that the profession needed to adopt as a matter of urgency “value pricing rather than hourly billing”, continuing that the march of ABSs into the profession would “sound the death knell of hourly billing, as it will lead to more positive and market-orientated practices”.
Lord Justice Jackson recommended that a costs council be established by the Civil Justice Council (CJC) as part of his wider review of civil litigation costs (18 January 2010).
Readers' comments (2)
Richard Moorhead, UCL Centre for Ethics and Law | 1-Nov-2012 12:24 pm
I've never really seen the sense in a Costs Council separate from the CJC. Costs is an important topic and it impacts on most of the CJCs remit. The concern should be with whether the work that needs doing on these issues is properly resourced and scrutinised.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Muhammad Haque | 1-Nov-2012 9:46 pm
Your reporting of the divergence between the Government and the Judiciary is not telling the real story about costs. Neuberger had uttered in the right direction but even he would not meet the requirements of universal justice which is what the English law marketers and court bureaucracies have been suffocating for centuries.
All the assumptions about the judiciary being unbiased must be thrown away. The same must happen to licensed lawyers being fit for purpose in the context of the need for a just judicial and legal system.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment