header-logo header-logo

05 September 2014 / Seamus Smyth
Issue: 7620 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Making matters worse?

Woolf & Jackson have diluted claimants’ costs recovery, says Seamus Smyth

The Woolf and Jackson Reports have made life tougher for claimants in business litigation by (i) introducing new litigation stages whose costs are not recoverable, (ii) increasing costs overall, and (iii) substantially reducing the proportion of costs which are recoverable by successful claimants. The two reports brought significant improvements but those improvements should not blind us to their—no doubt accidental—adverse consequences. Will it get worse?

In the 1990s (before Woolf) one could, with reasonable confidence, advise a client with a commercial claim that if a letter before action were written and he instituted successful proceedings shortly thereafter, he would probably be awarded, say, 80% of his actual costs. 20% was bad enough.

Woolf woes

Woolf introduced protocols. These are expensive; the costs are likely to be irrecoverable. He promoted mediation—also expensive—the cost of which is almost certainly irrecoverable. Summary assessment of costs in interlocutory proceedings was also a consequence of Woolf. The preparation of a summary assessment schedule alone has a further cost

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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