Brace yourself for unprecedented change, says master of rolls

Dyson.jpg
Friday 19 October 2012 by Catherine Baksi

Implementing the Jackson costs reforms will inevitably lead to satellite litigation, the master of the rolls has warned. He urged courts and lawyers to ‘do what they can’ to minimise it.

In a wide-ranging speech at the Law Society yesterday, Lord Dyson (pictured) said that the legal profession faces a period of ‘unprecedented change’ with the implementation of the Jackson reforms; the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, and the Legal Services Act (LSA) as well as changes to the civil procedure rules.

‘Each of these reforms on their own would present a challenge to the courts and the legal profession’ he said, but taken together they constitute a ‘massive change’.

Warning of the risk of unintended consequences, he said: ‘Each carries the risk that, rather than improving access to justice, they will weaken and undermine it.’ He called on the legal profession and judiciary to work together to ensure that does not happen.

Dyson warned that the reductions to legal aid will inevitably cause an increase in the number of litigants in person, putting increased pressure on courts at a time when budgets are being reduced.

He welcomed the introduction of fixed fees for fast-track personal injury claims, but said he hoped this would be extended and applied to all fast-track cases. In due course, he said, consideration may be given to introducing a fixed-costs regime in certain multi-track cases.

The former Supreme Court justice, who took up his new appointment two weeks ago, scotched ‘whispers’ that it would not be possible to complete the implementation of the Jackson reforms on schedule. ‘Let there be no doubt about it, the reforms will come into force next April,’ he said.

Paying tribute to the work done by Jackson, Dyson warned of the risk of ‘time-consuming and costly’ satellite litigation if the new rules are not drafted to ensure clarity and applied by the courts consistently.

He described satellite litigation as the ‘bane’ of any civil justice system, saying that it has a negative impact on the immediate litigants involved in the litigation and on the courts, as well on the ability of other court users to obtain timely access to the courts.

‘While it is inevitable that new rules and procedures will give rise to some satellite litigation, it is vitally important that the courts and lawyers do what they can to minimise the risk of such litigation,’ he said.

Dyson said that he hoped that the court would not be called on often to adjudicate on the reforms, but when it is, he said, it will need to ‘speak clearly through its judgments’ to explain how the reforms are intended to operate.

‘If the Court of Appeal fails to provide consistent guidance, no one should be surprised if that breeds more litigation: a lack of clarity and consistency on its part will only generate confusion in the county courts and the High Court and amongst the profession, and ultimately it will undermine the aims of the reforms,’ he added.

Once the reforms have been implemented, Dyson said the Ministry of Justice will need to monitor their effects and gather evidence. ‘If the reforms work as they are intended to, then we should be able to obtain evidence of costs reducing over time,’ he said.

But where it is apparent that there are unexpected flaws and consequences or that an aspect of the reforms is not working, Dyson said that rather than ‘slavish adherence’ to them, steps should be taken to identify the source of the problem and rectify it.

Dyson added: ‘I do not wish to give the impression that I do not have faith in the reforms. That is very far from being the case. I fully expect and anticipate that the reforms will succeed.’

Elsewhere, he said that external investment in law firms under the LSA may be a ‘benign development’ but he warned against complacency towards the risks posed to the public interest if external investors ‘set the parameters of practice in their favour rather than in the consumer’s best interests or the public interest’.

He said: ‘A complacent attitude to inherent risk was, in all likelihood, a significant contributory factor in the financial crisis the effects of which we are still feeling. We cannot afford a similar crisis in the provision of legal services.’

LinkedIn logoJoin our LinkedIn Legal Aid sub-group

Comments

Minimising satellite litigation

The Court of Appeal didn't exactly get off to a great start with Simmons v Castle, did it?

"I fully expect and

"I fully expect and anticipate that the reforms will succeed" No one disagrees that they will succeed.

However "success" is difficult to define depending on which side of the fence you stand on.

To me, it means less claims through the courts, lower compensation and lower legal costs. In other words, the insurance industry will "succeed" in saving millions of pounds.

Have I missed something?

"He welcomed the introduction of fixed fees in fast track personal injury claims".... When was this announced and approved?

Good point

was he referring to the rules that have been in force for 2+ years? or new costs rules that we don't know about yet?

Moj announced two weeks ago

Moj announced two weeks ago that as well as portal being extended to £25k for Rtas it will also be extended to el and pl claims. It will be a disaster - 6 months to go and the CJC haven't even announced how the package will work. I have grave reservations that it will be implemented in time for April, if it does it will be a rushed blotched job.

Haha! "We can't do our job

Haha!

"We can't do our job properly so would the profession we didn't support please help us"-says extremely well paid senior civil servant (whose colleagues are whingeing about their substantial pensions being slightly trimmed).

Heat, kitchen, etc.

Another nauseating judicial

Another nauseating judicial announcement.

It's the Judges who encourage satellite litigation by their wholly inconsistent approach to the rules, and willingness to allow every small esoteric point to be taken to the nth degree...

Slightly off topic but

Slightly off topic but certainly about judicial pronouncements -an article in the Indy states that Leveson asked the editor of the Times why it had run a piece about an "In the Thick of It" episode which was to parody judicial inquiries.

Our judges certainly seem to think they are entitled to pronounce on most matters despite not having been elected. A taste of the censorship likely to be proposed by Leveson.

judges v politicians

So the only people who are entitled to pronounce are those who are elected- eg politicians and police commissioners?

Leveson is about how to protect us from unelected owners of large media companies abusing their privileged position. Any proposals will have to be approved by Parliament..

Those who are elected

Those who are elected certainly have a democratic mandate to do so.

The unelected should keep to the job they are appointed to do. That will certainly not encompass protecting their own self importance by seeking to intimidate satire.

It is exceptionally unlikely that any proposals Leveson formulates will do other than protect those with power-whether elected or otherwise. Let us hope that Parliament has more sense than Leveson has demonstrated thus far.

Leveson (and his merry band

Leveson (and his merry band of slebs n luvvies) looks set to 'protect' us from large media companies in the same way as the Burmese government protected its hoi polloi's tender sensibilities from the dangerous invective of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Those caring Soviets were dedicatedly protective of their charges too, so why can't it work here?

Of course, saving our simple minds from the ceaseless assaults of these malevolent corporate sophisticates may have the consequence (unintended, mais oui!) of empowering the censoriousness of our cultural and economic elite but, hey, that's democracy innit.

We are all in this

We are all in this together.

We all have £100,000 plus government salaries and we all have gold plated, final salary pension schemes.

Don't rock the boat and get all uppity.

There's a good chap.

Carry on doing whatever it is you do and don't bother us unless you absolutely have to.

We are all in this

I do hope that Coalface worker is making a 'not very funny' joke. The poor relations in HMCTS would be doing well if they were on that sort of salary.

'not very funny'

District Judges: £102,921 per annum.

Bascially all other judges are on more than that all the way up to the Lord Chief Justice on £239,845.

Just search for "Judicial salaries from 1 April 2012".

There is a joke in there but it’s definitely 'not very funny'.

Jackson is WRONG

Oh, Lord Dyson, you are so naive. If you took the time to deal with a personal injury claim you would realise that Jackson's recommendations are wrong. If the Claimant's costs are fixed in a personal injury claim, then the Defendant insurer will simply do nothing (why should they - the costs will be the same regardless of whether they pay out the compensation today or in several years). The ultimate outcome will be that firms of personal injury Solicitors are forced to cut wages and replace skilled fee earners with cheap labour (resulting in a poor service/ reduced access to proper justice).

Also, taking away recovery of success fees from Claimants will mean that Solicitors will be unwilling to take on higher risk claims that will require a large amount of work/ investment of costs.

The current civil justice and costs systems work well enough. Why do we need to change?

If the costs of the system are too high, surely all that is required is to tighten up the definition of proportionality.