New costs rules

The new CPR rules implementing large swathes of the Jackson costs reforms are apparently due to be released today.

Because recoverability of additional liabilities is due to end, large parts of the CPR and Costs Practice Direction will become redundant. The relevant parts of the CPR and CPD are therefore due to be have a complete makeover with the end result anticipated to me much shorter and, in theory, easier to navigate.

The only problem is that recoverability is not due to end retrospectively. We will still have several years of claims where the old rules will apply. To put this in context, a file has just landed on my desk where it looks suspiciously as though the CFA will be found to be in breach of the CFA Regulations notwithstanding that those Regulations were revoked as far back as 2005. Eight years down the line the old rules are still relevant.

How will legal publishers deal with this? Will they consign the old rules to Volume 2 of the White Book? Don’t throw out your old copy on 1st April.

9 thoughts on “New costs rules

  1. Whilst all advice is (usually) appreciated, this does rather seem like the old adage of teaching one to suck eggs.

    And at any rate, I have no intention of throwing out my copy of the White book. I intend to have it framed as a reminder to myself that there was once a time when access to justice was the cornerstone at the heart of the rule of law, and the average Jo/e on the street could stand up and fight, and have their day in Court when s/he had been wronged by a multi-national faceless corporation, with seemingly bottomless pockets when it comes personal expenses and Government ‘donations’ but can’t scrape together two pennies when their lack of a moral compass has injured, maimed or killed some poor ‘pleb’ from the street . Alas, it really does seem to be the case that money makes the world go round, at least when you have it anyway!

    The current system may have its flaws but here’s another old adage, two wrongs do not make a right!

  2. For access to justice you would do better to frame the old Legal Aid handbook brfore franchsing.

    The real issue is the cut backs in crime, family , children proceedings, care , immigration and emigration. Thats a person’s life ,librty and well being not a £1,000 whiplash claim

  3. Clinical Neglingence also deserves a mention as does PI pre 1999, Housing , Welfare Benefits and pretty much everything for the “average Joe”

  4. You mean like that “average Joe” Abu Hamza who claimed for everything except whiplash?

    Please remind us. How much did he contribute in tax and NI?

  5. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

    The two largest elements to a bill are the success fee and hourly rates. It appears common place these days that the Courts are unwilling to stringently assess / reduce these two aspects which are largely responsible for the Jackson reforms in the first place. Claimant Solicitors have no one to blame but themselves. What did they think was going to happen.

    All that was needed was a method of bringing back some sanity to the assessment of these issues and a sharpening of the sword. Also doing away with the recovery of additional liabilities in the detailed assessment process would make the DA process more proportionate.

  6. Can someone tell me what working party has been set up to monitor the insurance industry in relation to motor premiums post Jackson implementation. Oh sorry there isnt one!!! What there isnt one!! but i thought that was the whole reason for change so insurer’s save huge amounts of money and pass those savings onto Joe Average!!!!


    What a total farse!!! Might aswell breed horses seems that we eat so many of them!!! and make lots of money from retailers who clearly support joe average! oh no not again what you mean they have ripped us off by overcharging for wrongly labelled products!! Joe average ripped off again. Oh well so long as the banks are back on track!! Oh no what you mean Barclays are just about to pay out millions in bonuses!!!

    What a life! At least we have our pensions!! Oh no what you mean ——– I could go on and on and on!!!

  7. and of course the latest word from Insurers on the reduction in premiums??
    unless the Discount Rate for Damages is reduced (and the Government presently supports an increase), then premiums will have to RISE.
    Dunno about you lot, but Im voting SNP at the next election…….

  8. A lot gets said on here and there is merit in much

    however the fact remains that there is fault and excess on both sides.

    I have seem some horrendous amounts of costs on “adverse costs”. It seems that Defendant solicitors do not practice what they preach but its ok, they bill on a solicitor and own client basis ….

    Then there is a CCFA with 100% and discounted rates – 100%??? how can that be when going to get paid a certain amount in any event, simply no risk of not recovering anything

    yes the courts “need to grow a pair too” and punish conduct etc.

    Then there were abuses in the legal aid system. Hamza clearly illustrates that

    There also clear excesses on claimant side too

    These all do show that there is fault with each and every system. I do however think the present system worked generally and with some robustness from courts all could have been fine

    It does seem however that the insurers are beyond reproach – they can say and do whatever they like and release their “propaganda” knowing that there will be no comeback and that the gov’t will swallow it.

    They engage if reprehensable activity

    1. third party capture
    2. alleged repair fraud – see the RSA cases and recent TV coverage
    3 – general dubious tactics
    4 propanda regarding claimant firms
    5 fail to pass on savings
    6 sell accident claims

    And yet it is always them that are the wronged party

    until all issues on both sides are addressed then there cannot be a level playing field

  9. I am creating my own group!

    ” Jackson Five” just looking for 4 other people to join! no exam needed just give me the nod and ya in!!! wow that rings bells!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>