I spent an enjoyable Saturday chairing a costs seminar that was being run by the Association of Costs Lawyer. (Hey, it beat Christmas shopping.) Some very interesting sessions from Simon Edwards from 39 Essex Street, Simon Brown from Crown Office Chambers (yes, there really were three Simons) and the ACL’s ever reliable Educational Development Officer Murray Heining.

However much one thinks one knows about costs law there is always something new to learn. And a frightening amount one is at risk of forgetting.

I am delighted to announce that I have been nominated for “the Asset & Wealth Management law expert position in England”. To be nominated for this prestigious position required recommendation either externally or by a special research team, and then approval by an applications panel.

If I accept this position, for a “nominal” fee of £500 I can then feature as recommended expert on a website that nobody will visit.

I can only begin to imagine how thorough the application panel must be for my name to have come through in this category.

A number of amendments to the CPR that will implement the Jackson costs reforms are being held over until October 2012. That date is set to be the “big bang” for implementation of a package of reforms.

One of the apparent amendments, as recently reported in the New Law Journal, is a rule change to attempt to control expert fees. This is the approved new wording with the amendments in bold:

“35.4
1) No party may call an expert or put in evidence an expert’s report without the court’s permission.

(2) When parties apply for permission they must provide an estimate of the costs of the proposed expert evidence and identify –

(a) the field in which expert evidence is required and the issues which the expert evidence will address; and

(b) where practicable, the name of the proposed expert.

(3) If permission is granted it shall be in relation only to the expert named or the field identified under paragraph (2). The order granting permission may specify the issues which the expert evidence should address.“