header-logo header-logo

27 June 2012
Issue: 7520 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The cost of Jackson

ACL survey: “Jackson will increase costs disputes”

The number of costs disputes between solicitors and their clients will rise as a result of the Jackson reforms, costs lawyers have predicted.

As of next April, when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) comes into force, success fees in “no-win, no-fee” cases will no longer be recoverable. Instead, clients will pay their own costs out of their damages and are therefore likely to take a keen interest in the amount of costs their solicitor racks up.

A survey of 137 members of the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL), published this week, showed 69% thought solicitor-client disputes would rise as a result.

Nearly a third of costs lawyers surveyed thought the Jackson reforms would discourage people from bringing cases, while more than half thought they would discourage solicitors from taking less straightforward cases.

Four out of 10 believe fierce competition will drive down the level of success fees, while nearly a third think costs will become more proportionate, and 42% think they will tilt the playing field in favour of defendants.

The survey uncovered common mistakes and misunderstandings by solicitors when dealing with costs. Failing to keep thorough records was the main complaint, followed by “they think they can do it themselves”. Other complaints included using unqualified costs draftsmen and only calling costs lawyers in when things have gone wrong.

Iain Stark, chairman of the ACL, says: “It is inevitable that solicitor/own client disputes will re-emerge post-LASPO, while the judiciary is emphasising how central costs management will be in the future.

“The truth is that many solicitors have neither the time nor experience to maximise the recovery of their own costs, and this is only going to become more difficult post-Jackson.”

Issue: 7520 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll