Having focused on case management & proportionality in his first update, Colin Campbell now turns his attention to Sir Rupert’s third interlocking reform—the electronic bill
- Costs budgeting does not necessarily save any costs or achieve fairness through facilitating ‘Access to Justice’. On the contrary, budgeting in conjunction with proportionality is leading to unjust outcomes.
Part one looked at two of Sir Rupert Jackson’s flagship recommendations, costs management (encompassing costs budgeting) and proportionality under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 44.3(5) in force from 1 April 2013. Part two concentrates on recommendation 6.1(i) to (iv) of Chapter 45—the Electronic Bill of costs and goes on to review how the three are working in practice and whether they are fulfilling Sir Rupert’s aim of improving ‘Access to Justice’.
Prior to his report and indeed until 6 April 2018, a winning party entitled to costs needed to present their bill using the tried and tested paper formula under CPR 47.6 PD 5.12.
When writing his report, Sir Rupert complained that the paper bill was
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
