Civil Costs Review is Step backwards
08 March 2010
Jackson’s final report, published in January 2010 recommends amonst many radical changes ending recoverablity of ATE insurance premiums and says that the claimant should pay up to 25% towards their costs from their compensation.
Lord Justice Jackson was charged with making recommendations “to promote access to justice at proportionate cost”. Regrettably, Temple concludes that if his recommendations were implemented as proposed:
- · access to justice for claimants will, once again, be restricted to the poor and the wealthy; therefore the Report fails in its key aim
- · the overriding objective that says that dealing with a case justly includes ensuring that, so far as is practicable, the parties are on an equal footing; will not be achieved
- · the principle that a successful party should keep all his / her damages, with a separate indemnity in respect to the costs incurred will be discarded;
- · further uncertainty and satellite litigation will be created in an area where a now mature market was providing an efficient and fair method for financing litigation; and
- · The assurances previously given to Parliament when the categories of claims for which Legal Aid was available were significantly reduced will be undermined.
- · the decisive advantage in litigation will be handed to the well funded/insured defendant
- · the notion that BTE insurance will somehow fill the gap left by ATE insurance is naïve and misconceived
Please click here to read more of Temples response to the Jackson report
(PDF document. You will need Acrobat Reader to open it).
