header-logo header-logo

15 March 2017
Issue: 7738 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Jackson’s judicial review roadshow

Lord Justice Jackson’s latest fixed costs roadshow has provided further indications that he may row back from his initial support for fixed recoverable costs in all cases valued at up to £250,000.

Jackson LJ began his review into fixed costs in November, and is conducting a series of seminars to gather facts.

However, lawyers voiced their concerns about fixed costs in judicial review cases at Jackson LJ’s latest seminar, at the Law Society’s London headquarters this week.

City Law School’s Professor Dominic Regan, who advised Sir Rupert on his 2010 review of civil justice costs, and who attended the seminar, said: “It was obvious that there was no appetite for fixed costs in judicial review work.

“Again and again, random members of the audience spoke with one voice. The staggering breadth of judicial review work was not regarded as capable of capture by a rigid costs regime.

“However, much was said in praise of the Aarhus Convention model enshrined in CPR 45.41–44. This imposes a limit on the amount of adverse costs. [Jackson LJ] may not then be proposing as radical a fixed costs landscape as he initially envisaged in his January 2016 opening proposals.”

In a progress report on his review, released earlier this month, he restated his support for lower value cases but said he had “an open mind” about what types and level of cases should fall within such a regime. He is due to complete his review by 31 July 2017. 

Issue: 7738 / 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