Search Mobile

collapse

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

Email address

Password

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

collapseSign

Home

Insights

Resources

Blogs

Sharing the burden

after the event insurance, costs, jackson report, James Arrowsmith, legal costs, litigation

27 August 2010

The debate about the future of litigation costs rages on. The Adam Smith Institute is the latest body to publish a report proposing reform to the CFA regime, and the abolition of legal aid for most claims.

The report’s author, Anthony Barton, proposes a cap on recoverable success fees and ATE premiums accompanied by a modest uplift in general damages to address the concern that claimants will be left less well off. The great strength of his report is in placing legal costs issues in the context of the current economic situation.

Barton is critical of Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals in relation to one way costs shifting and expresses concern in relation to the potential for unintended consequences, including spurious claims and fraud.

Jacksons’ recommendations should not be dismissed lightly and are likely to be at the heart of the Government’s proposed consultation in Autumn. Whether or not his conclusions prove correct, Barton’s report is also deserving of further consideration in the months ahead.

related opinions

Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases

Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.

View blog

Marriott International: a look behind the ICO’s £99m fine and what this means for corporate acquisitions

Last month, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced notice of its intention to fine (NOI) Marriott International, Inc. £99m for infringements of the GDPR.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog