header-logo header-logo

Lawyers call for a pause on fixed costs

13 September 2023
Issue: 8040 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Procedure & practice , Judicial review
printer mail-detail
With less than two weeks to go before the extension of fixed recoverable costs (FRC), costs lawyers have urged a six-month delay on the basis the current plans are ‘piecemeal and unreasonable’.

The FRC extension to cases valued up to £100,000 is due to begin on 1 October. However, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is still consulting on aspects such as whether costs on assessment and certain clinical negligence cases should be included, with any resulting reforms being implemented in April 2024. The Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) warned this six-month hiatus between the reforms going live and further reforms being added would result in a basket of cases where different rules applied.

The ACL also wants clinical negligence excluded from the new rules until the Department of Health and Social Care’s separate FRC scheme for cases worth up to £25,000 has been published.

ACL chair Jack Ridgway said: ‘Irrespective of our opposition to the FRC extension on principle, it is clear that the government’s piecemeal approach to reform is only going to cause more problems than it purports to solve.

‘It fails to give the legal market sufficient time to plan, prepare and adapt to what will be a significant upheaval. The MoJ needs to fix the Solicitors Act 1974 before tipping a new load of cases into the system.’

In August, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil) formally launched judicial review proceedings against the inclusion of clinical negligence claims.

The Bar Council was due to meet with MoJ officials this week about its concerns, namely, it is not possible to recover the advocacy fee for preparation and advice if the case settles or is vacated shortly before trial. Moreover, the fixed advocacy fee has not kept pace with inflation.

Sam Townend KC, vice chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘There are aspects of the reforms that remain unreasonable and arguably irrational.

‘The costs regime should help, not hinder, settlement and getting the backlog down.’

Townend hinted at a potential legal challenge from the Bar Council, stating his hope the government could reflect ‘so we can avoid the need for judicial review’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll