MoJ Extension & LJ Jackson’s Civil Costs Proposals Simon Johnson 14 May 2012.

Post on 01-Apr-2015

215 views 0 download

Tags:

Transcript of MoJ Extension & LJ Jackson’s Civil Costs Proposals Simon Johnson 14 May 2012.

MoJ Extension & LJ Jackson’s Civil Costs

Proposals

Simon Johnson14 May 2012

MoJ – Key Proposals

Eligible RTA claims - £10k > £25k

EL and PL claims to be added to portal

MoJ – Key Proposals

Is the current scheme a success?Reduced cost:-Stage 1 - £400Stage 2 -£800Stage 3 - £500Web portal a magnet for criminal activity?Are EL/PL claims suitable for the scheme?Disease/construction/product claims too?

MoJ – Key Proposals

Adjusting to ChangePortal stabilityHow long to investigate properly?Clinical negligence?No increase to fast-track limitFast track – fixed recoverable costsTimescale

MoJ – Key Proposals

Helping policyholders adjustTo ensure immediate notificationReview KPIs for investigationsDedicated portal team?Impact of increased claims Increased operational costs

In the beginning there was…

Meet the new Costs Avengers

Meet the new Costs Avengers

Meet the new Costs Avengers

Meet the new Costs Avengers

Claimant Costs Schedule: Fast-Track

Claimant Costs Schedule: Fast-Track

Claimant Costs Schedule: Fast-Track

How did we get to this?

Lord Woolf’s Reforms

Two key aims:- Reduce delay – a success Reduce cost – sadly, no

How did we get to this?

Escalation of costs driven byAccess to Justice Act 1999

How did we get to this?

How did we get to this?

Key Proposals

•Success Fees/ATE premia – irrecoverable

•Success fees payable by client

Key Proposals

Success fees capped at

of general damages

Key Proposals

Awards of general damages for PSLA to be increased by

Key Proposals

Referral fees abolished

Key Proposals

•Fixed fees for fast-track personal injury cases

•Increased use of summary assessment

•Damages–Based Agreements (Contingency Fees)

Key Proposals

QOCS

Qualified one-way costs Shifting

C will not pay D’s costs if unsuccessful

D will pay C’s costs if successful

QOCS

Interaction of QOCS with P36 CPR?

QOCS

Interaction of QOCS with P36 CPR?Remember C will lose 25% of general damages

in the success fee

QOCS

Interaction of QOCS with P36 CPR?Remember C will lose 25% of general damages

in the success feeBUT

QOCS

Interaction of QOCS with P36 CPR?Remember C will lose 25% of general damages

in the success feeBUT

Be assisted by:-

QOCS

Interaction of QOCS with P36 CPR?Remember C will lose 25% of general damages

in the success feeBUT

Be assisted by:-a) 10% uplift on general damages +

QOCS

Interaction of QOCS with P36 CPR?Remember C will lose 25% of general damages

in the success feeBUT

Be assisted by:-a) 10% uplift on general damages +

b) Uplift of 10% on total damages if P36 offer effective (capped at £75,000)

Can D ever recover their costs?

•C’s costs liability constrained by QOCS

Can D ever recover their costs?

•C’s costs liability constrained by QOCS•But if C recovers less than D’s P36 offer:-

Can D ever recover their costs?

•C’s costs liability constrained by QOCS•But if C recovers less than D’s P36 offer:-

1) D pays C pre-offer costs

Can D ever recover their costs?

•C’s costs liability constrained by QOCS•But if C recovers less than D’s P36 offer:-

1) D pays C pre-offer costs2) C pays D post-offer costs

Can D ever recover their costs?

•C’s costs liability constrained by QOCS•But if C recovers less than D’s P36 offer:-

1) D pays C pre-offer costs2) C pays D post-offer costs

Caveat

Can D ever recover their costs?

C only ever pay D costs with regard to all the circumstances:-

i) C’s financial resourcesii) Parties’ conduct

What conduct will make C lose costs protection?

What conduct will make C lose costs protection?

What conduct will make C lose costs protection?

Back to Naomi…

Back to Naomi…

MGN Ltd v Campbell [2011]

ECHR held that success fee breached MGN’s right to freedom of expression

Back to Naomi…

MGN Ltd v Campbell [2011]

ECHR give LJ Jackson a shot in the arm.Access to justice (Art 6) must be balanced with

freedom of speech (Art 10)

Back to Naomi…

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions not in the Bill (but which will be

introduced)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions not in the Bill (but which will be

introduced)•QOCS

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions not in the Bill (but which will be

introduced)•QOCS

•New proportionality Test

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions not in the Bill (but which will be

introduced)•QOCS

•New proportionality Test•Increase in general damages by 10%

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions not in the Bill (but which will be

introduced)•QOCS

•New proportionality Test•Increase in general damages by 10%

•Reversal of Carver (but see amendment to CPR 36.14)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions in the Bill:-

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions in the Bill:-

•Abolition of CFA recovery from D

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions in the Bill:-

•Abolition of CFA recovery from D•Abolition of ATE recovery from D (save for cost

of expert in clinical negligence)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions in the Bill:-

•Abolition of CFA recovery from D•Abolition of ATE recovery from D (save for cost

of expert in clinical negligence)•Damages-Based Agreements in most civil

litigation

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders

Bill•Provisions in the Bill:-

•Abolition of CFA recovery from D•Abolition of ATE recovery from D (save for cost

of expert in clinical negligence)•Damages-Based Agreements in most civil

litigation•Payment of additional amounts if C matches or

beats D’s offer to settle

Will we see an end to this?

Will this be the net effect?

Assault

Assaults – Violence between Staff

Assaults – Violence between Staff

Weddall v Barchester [2012]

Request was a pretext for violence unconnected with his role.

Assailant not acting in the course of his employment.

Assaults – Violence between Staff

Wallbank v Fox Designs [2012]

The employer should bear vicarious liability.Spontaneous force in response to an instruction given to an employee.

Mesothelioma

Public Liability

Insurer on cover 10 years before disease develops should respond.

Mesothelioma – Employers’ Liability

Mesothelioma – Employers’ Liability