Report this comment to a moderator

Jackson proposes sweeping reforms to cut litigation costs

How does returning to the situation in which PI claimants paid success fees and ATE premiums in any way enhance access to justice? While it may make some sense in commercial litigation, as things stand, the vast majority of PI claimants pay nothing, win or lose . All Jackson will achieve is to allow Defendant insurers to continue their current inefficiencies but limit their liabilty to pay the costs the Claimant has to pay in dealing with that. Jackson is attacking the wrong end of the problem - if instead we sort out what is wrong with the system, the costs problem will go away. If the insurers think litigation is too expensive, they should settle sooner and stop making risible offers. And detailed assessment is the way to tackle any claimant lawyers who claim too much. Frankly, I think Jackson has been a tremendous waste of public money and certainly will not benefit litigants with genuine claims or defences. The costs system is not the problem and if it ain't broke, why fix it?

15-Jan-2010

9:56 am