header-logo header-logo

06 August 2014
Issue: 7617 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

New GHRs rejected

Lord Dyson sends CJC costs committee back to drawing board

Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, has rejected recommendations for new guideline hourly rates (GHRs) due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The recommendations are the result of 12 months’ consultation with the profession by the Civil Justice Council’s costs committee. The rates provide a guideline to judges of market rates for legal work.

However, Lord Dyson did accept the committee’s recommendations that the fees of costs lawyers and CILEx members and fellows should be upgraded to similar levels to those of solicitors.

Lord Dyson said: “A relatively small non-randomised survey cannot be a secure basis for determining what it costs solicitors to run their practices. This shortcoming in the evidence is fundamental.”

He acknowledged that the committee could not compel the profession to respond to its survey and so got a poor response, and that the Jackson reforms make the future difficult to predict as the reforms may drive the GHRs down further.

Consequently, there will be no change to the existing rates. Lord Dyson has sent the committee back to the drawing board but recommended they ask the Law Society and the government to provide resources for proper research to be carried out.

NLJ consultant editor David Greene, a partner at Edwin Coe and a member of the costs committee, says: “The conclusions of the Master of the Rolls are a sensible approach to what would have been some dramatic changes.

“The profession may well have been surprised that rates last reviewed over four years ago were being reduced. The time has not however been wasted. Many lessons have been learned and hopefully we can move on to a proper evidence based survey.”

Issue: 7617 / 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