Find Out More

  • Accreditations
  • Join our Team
  • Terms of Business
  • Pricing Information
  • Client Feedback
    • Leave a Review
  • Complaints
  • Regulatory Information
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Skip to footer navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation

Harold Stock & Co. Solicitors

Rooted in the community

  • Mossley:
    01457 835597
  • Failsworth:
    0161 682 2400
  • Stockport:
    0161 456 5012
  • Get In Touch
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Team
    • CSR
  • Legal Services
    • Personal Injury
    • Medical Negligence
    • Serious Injury
    • Commercial and Company
    • Family Law
    • Property
    • Wills, Probate And The Elderly
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • More

Law Society responds to the recommendation that fixed costs are needed for all personal injury claims up to £250,000

8th February 2016 by Harold Stock & Co

Lord Justice Jackson, the architect of the civil costs review and the present civil costs regime, recently called for fixed costs to apply to all claims valued up to £250,000. Further to his initial review which was delivered to Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger in 2010, L. J. Jackson has now urged government ministers to make reform an immediate priority with a view to setting fixed recoverable costs by the end of this year.

The Law Society, however, has voiced serious concerns over his proposals. Whilst the Society is supportive of the ‘fixed costs’ principle in limited circumstances, it has argued that their application in relation to highly complex cases would be ‘totally inappropriate’ and would ultimately undermine access to justice.

So what exactly has Lord Justice Jackson suggested? Well, instigated the cost-cutting reforms whichformed the second part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Jackson has now said the time has come to significantly extend the fixed fees regime. Currently fixed costsonly apply to personal injury claims valued up to £25,000; however Lord Justice Jackson has now recommended that every type of civil claim up to £250,000 should be subject to new restrictions.

In a speech in Westminster, he even went as far as to suggest a grid of rates – minus disbursements and VAT – for each value of claim: £18,750 for claims up to £50,000; £30,000 for claims up to £100,000; £47,500 for claims up to £175,000, and £70,250 for claims up to £250,000. However, he did advise the government to put on hold plans to fix the fees in clinical negligence claims to stop what he called the ‘Balkanisation’ of fees for different types of claims:

“What we do not want to have is a series of separate grids for different types of cases,” he said.

“There should be a single fixed costs grid for all multi-track cases up to £250,000.’”

He argued that applying fixed costs to claims valued over £250,000 would not be welcome by solicitors acting for both claimants and defendants, claiming that it ‘would be too great a change for the profession to accept’: however, he said the reform would save on the pressures of costs management and help solicitors to explain to clients how costs have been accrued. He also went on to suggest a universal costs regime could be implemented once people see how it works.

Lord Justice Jackson said practitioners’ experience of fixed fees in low-value claims – as well as in the IP Enterprise Court – has been ‘satisfactory’:

“My impression is that the profession is now more willing to accept fixed costs than it was in the past. I do accept if we have a regime of fixed costs there will be winners and losers – it is impossible a case will cost the client precisely the amount set out in the grid.”

“That [however] is a price worth paying in order to obtain the benefits of certainty, predictability and proportionality – I have come across cases which have flown out of control where the issue is of modest value.”

Responding to Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations, Law Society president, Jonathan Smithers, said that while the Society supports the principle of fixed costs for lower value and less complex cases, it is ‘extremely concerned’ at the proposal costs should be fixed for all claims up to £250,000.

This represents a tenfold increase on the current limit for many claims.

“The application of fixed costs for highly complex cases is likely to be totally inappropriate and would raise significant questions about the ability of many people to access justice.”

“A single approach for all cases, regardless of complexity, will lead to many cases being economically unviable to pursue which undermines the principle of justice delivering fairness for all. We are also concerned by the suggestion that these proposals could be consulted on and implemented within a year as we believe this is unrealistic.”

“While Lord Justice Jackson does not speak with the authority of the government his views are clearly of huge interest. We support his call for a delay in the implementation of fixed costs in clinical negligence cases. Fixed fees are simply not appropriate in cases where a baby has died as a result of negligent care. A fixed costs scheme could curtail the ability for important cases to be brought, where the severity of the issue is not reflected in monetary terms but the purpose of the case is to reduce incidents of harm in the future by ensuring lessons are learned.”

“The introduction of fixed recoverable costs for further civil work has been expected for some time and the Law Society agrees that they could be appropriate in low-value claims as they can provide greater certainty for both sides in litigation and they avoid protracted disputes about the level of costs. They can also reduce the problems caused by costs budgeting and assessment in civil litigation,” he added.

Filed Under: News

Harold Stock & Co

Related

Parenting Through Separation: New Free Parenting Guide
29th November 2021
Categories: News
unhappy couple - divorce fee to increase -
Divorce fee to increase in England and Wales
13th September 2021
Categories: Family, News
writing a will
Can I make a Will during lockdown?
18th January 2021
Categories: News, Wills and probate

Footer

  • Accreditations
  • Join our Team
  • Terms of Business
  • Pricing Information
  • Client Feedback
    • Leave a Review
  • Complaints
  • Regulatory Information
  • Acceptable Use
  • Complaints
  • Email Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy/Cookies
  • Regulatory Information
  • Terms of Website Use
harold stock solicitors

Mossley (Head Office)

55-57 Stamford Street
Mossley
Tameside OL5 0LN

Tel: 01457 835597
Fax: 0330 024 9210

harold stock solicitors

Failsworth

Ivy Business Centre
Crown Street
Failsworth M35 9PB

Tel: 0161 682 2400
Fax: 0330 024 9210

harold stock solicitors

Stockport

Pepper House
1 Pepper Road
Stockport SK7 5DP

Tel: 0161 456 5012
Fax: 0330 024 9210

Email: info@haroldstock.com

Harold Stock & Co Solicitors is a trading name of Harold Stock & Co Limited, a Limited Company registered in England and Wales. Company No: 07201476. Registered Office: 55-57 Stamford Street, Mossley, Tameside, OL5 0LN. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (535629). VAT No: 991 015 916 A full list of Directors is available at the Company’s Registered Office.

  • Acceptable Use
  • Complaints
  • Email Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy/Cookies
  • Regulatory Information
  • Terms of Website Use

Company Registered in England and Wales. No. 07201476
Copyright © 2023
Log in
Instilled Ltd

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT