Jackson review reviewed

  • Print
  • Comments (12)

Readers' comments (12)

  • We are not long out of the woods of huge volumes of satellite litigation flowing from the dramatic and ill thought out changes to litigation we have all seen over the last decade or so. Just as a status quo is reached, the goalposts shift more dramatically than ever before. I wander how long it will take for the "millions" saved to be swallowed up in the resurgence of inevitable satellite litigation? And if implemented, will the vast savings which make all this worthwhile result in a decrease in my car insurance renewal or home contents insurance? Or will there in fact be no benefit at all to the public?

    Wholesale criticism of the current regime is noted, but perhaps LJ Jackson should remind himself that the regime was not introduced at the behest of practitioners.

    Perhaps he should also remind himself of what he learned all those years ago; That the aim of the legal system is to put an injured person back in the financial position they would have been in had they not suffered injury at the hands of the negligent party. I do not recall (and I studied more recently I suspect) a caveat that up to 25% of those damages will be whipped away to effectively subsidise the insurance industry. At Macro level, this would be the net result of the proposed reforms. At Micro level, a claimant will have to pay for the privilege of their opponent and insurers taking unsustainable and ridiculous points, defending indefensible claims, delaying and otherwise generating the sort of costs which so concern LJ Jackson. Perhaps the reasons behind the levels of costs claimed requires rather more consideration.

    An impressive piece of work it may be from an academic perspective. It's relevance however, in the real world, escapes me just as it will escape those of my future clients from whom I am forced to demand a percentage of their damages.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • well said Daryl L Robinson

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (12)