Unveiling the reforms

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Readers' comments (2)

  • Lord Justice Jackson’s review of litigation costs has two interrelated, but distinct strands. Firstly, he makes recommendations which are aimed at reducing the cost of the litigation process overall. Secondly, he makes recommendations which are aimed at shifting the burden of what costs remain from one place to another.
    The first strand (reducing costs overall) is in the interests of both claimants and defendants, and Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations should be welcomed by everyone involved in the dispute resolution process. However, Lord Justice Jackson’s approach to the second strand (shifting the burden of what costs remain) is, in our view, of real concern.
    At present, the cost of litigation is borne primarily by defendants whose actions have caused others (successful claimants) to suffer loss. Many of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations will, if implemented in their current form, have the effect of shifting the costs burden from (unsuccessful) defendants to (successful) claimants.
    The difficulty with this approach is that many defendants (employers, professional advisers, property owners etc) are able to spread the cost of any claims which they may face by insuring against them. In this respect, the defendants “stand together”. Claimants, on the other hand, “stand alone”, as we do not, in this country, have a viable market for allowing potential claimants (i.e. all members of the public) to insure against the risk of suffering a loss due to someone else’s actions, and having to incur the cost of pursuing a claim. As a result, whereas defendants are, in many cases, able to spread the cost of becoming involved in a dispute, claimants are unable to do so.
    Unless commercially appropriate ”before the event” insurance becomes widely available, the only way to spread the costs of the litigation process in a way that is financially manageable for those involved, is for those costs to be borne primarily by those who are able to stand together, as opposed to those who necessarily stand alone.
    For these reasons, it is our view that the recommendations from the Jackson report which are aimed at shifting costs from one place to another are socially undesirable, and should be opposed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We are a family disputing a claim or £12,000 against the claimant who has a CFA he has the largest firm of solicitors in our area representing him, the costs are extortionate, we no way out, we are of low income and we are looking at loosing our home & all that we have if we loose at court with costs & possible success fees, we are looking to loose £200,000 - £250,000 is this justice? It is who is better at playing the game and we have found that although we have purchased a defective product but the claimant solicitor is much better at the game of legalities than ours sadly, justice is not being done, the winner will be who is cleverer. We can do nothing as we are trapped in a situation we never invited or want to be in. Who protects people like us? Success Fees are destructive. We have solcitors in our area whose only work is with No Win No Fee and they are very wealthy companies!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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 (2)