header-logo header-logo

03 April 2019
Issue: 7835 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Ministers set out fixed costs proposals

Controlling costs should be top priority, lawyers say

Lawyers have given a cautious response to the launch of a consultation into fixed recoverable costs (FRC) in cases worth £25,000–£100,000.

FRC would also be extended to all cases on the fast-track worth up to £25,000, and a new process and FRC regime would be introduced for noise induced hearing loss cases.

FRC were first implemented for road traffic accident cases up to £10,000 damages in 2010. In November 2016, the government and senior judges backed extending FRC, and Sir Rupert Jackson was commissioned to develop proposals. Sir Rupert published a report in 2017, advocating extending FRC.

Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School, an NLJ columnist and adviser to Sir Rupert, says: ‘I have it on the highest authority that the ministry is keen to implement change.

‘It will not stop there. If the model works up to £100,000 the temptation will be to raise the ceiling to £250,000’.

However, the Association of Costs Lawyers called for more data and evidence. A spokesman said: ‘The proposed figures for the fixed costs adopted by the Ministry of Justice in the consultation are nearly two years out of date and were based on just one law firm’s sample of cases, where it acted for the defendants.

‘The government needs a much more rigorous statistical base if it is to widen the use of fixed costs, and also needs to commit to regularly reviewing and updating them.’

Brett Dixon, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said: ‘Attention must be on helping to control costs, including any recoverable costs of those representing the wrongdoer based on the work they do, rather than limiting what is recoverable from those responsible for putting the injured person back on track.’ 

The ‘Fixed recoverable costs consultation’, which opened last week, closes at one minute to midnight on 6 June 2019. 

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