Kerry Underwood
86 comments By Kerry Underwood
A very moving piece as well as an outstanding piece of journalism.
Thank you Eduardo.Yes, they are.
Whatever the underlying reason 96% of applications are successful in this vital part of the civil justice system, of key concern to the families concerned. So shunt it off to the unqualified Ombudsman, not bound by the law, and whose decisions can only be challenged by the expensive Judicial Review process. Likewise Assisted Dying =- a panel not a court. Civil Justice is being destroyed. This is not just underfunding - it is sacking all the expert judges who hear these matters. It is the road to Nuremberg - major civil disorder or worse is coming.
Not a penny for civil justice as far as I can see.
The answer is an automatic 50% uplift on costs- mirroring the Fixed Recoverable Costs scheme - where an allegation of fundamental dishonesty is made, but not made out.
As the claimant suffers stress, there should be a 50% uplift on damages as well.The Supreme Court got it right.
We are heading towards the elimination of all small law firms by the SRA, the collapse of the legal profession, the wholesale disillusionment of, not with, the judiciary, the collapse of the rule of law and consequent civil disorder. Most of us know that.
There is hardly any point in engaging in discussion on wholly irrational proposals such as this.
I was at the opening night of Cape Town Opera's Aida last week- the logic of this is that after the 17 -minute standing ovation, the cast should have invited the audience to complain and get their money back.Well-remembered :-)
A committee instead of a High Court JUdge because the High Court is too busy to deal with life and death cases -what with dealing with the 60% of all Commercial work being between foreign litigants with no UK connection.
But, hey that brings in foreign earnings for expensive lawyers -so much more important than deciding life or death issues for British people, or at a mundane level repairing the fallen down courts in Cardiff, Truro, Taunton, Nottingham...Very sad. Good, popular local firm.
That would be the Citizens' Advice Bureau that all of my staff were contracted to volunteer for--until the CAB decided to compete with their volunteer law firms and apply for Green Fom contracts and legal aid and got into bed with Bravo....no thanks that ship has sailed.
Great piece John and a great, if deeply troubling television piece. You are spot on about it not producing the outrage that it should and I suspect that it is for the reason you say - the Post Office is seen as a revered institution.
Many find it difficult to accept that institutions such as this, and the National Health Service and the court system are now failing so badly.
It is destabilizing to face this -but that also means that these institutions can get away with it.
Worrying times. This series may have a major effect on public opinion-everyone appears to be talking about it today.Not consulted on? It was in Lord Justice Jackson's July 2017 Report -Chapter 7, Para 4.7 and then consulted on in detail. These reforms were originally due to come in in 2018 -whatever you think of them, they have had more consultation than any modern change in costs and procedure. Indeed they were originally proposed in Lord Woolf's 1995 report- Access to Justice -page 185.
The difference here is that the claimant knew exactly what she would get if she won as the issue was whether she should get portal-only costs or post-portal fixed costs, so she knew the maximum discount was just 7p.
Parliament chose to amend Part 36 by adding in CPR 36.17(5)(e) requiring any offer to be a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings.
This obviously means that there will be some offers that do not satisfy that test.
This was one of them and is based on this Civil Procedure Rule.
Although it is a matter of discretion for the court, I see nothing wrong in this decision.
Anyone offering a discount of just 7p against a clear and certain amount must realize it may fall foul of CPR 36.17(5)(e).I thought that everyone knew that Wikipedia is the source of all legal precedent....
As I said on Twitter, a disgraceful decision by the High Court. It should be noted that both the Recorder and the High Court said that even if they had discretion to allow the claim in they would not have exercised it. Courts are too often now in the frame of mind to avoid hearing cases if at all possible. That is the exact opposite of their role and duty. Shameful.
Anonymous at 3:39 and 3:45. I make it 12,300 pounds and not 4,300. Are you not confusing Band 3 pre-issue in Table 1 with Band 3 issued- settled before trial - Table 12B?
I need to go through the draft rules again and again, but on my initial readings I agree with Anonymous- Table 2 seems largely inconsistent with the new scheme.
The new rules do include some clinical negligence cases. The Rules will be introduced by a Statutory Instrument which will only come into force if not voted down by Parliament. You cannot JR Parliament.
Forget it and learn to make fixed costs workYou can't. Solicitors Act 1974 governs this. It is an Act of Parliament and requires an Act of Parliament to change it.
Any attempt to discipline solicitors would be a Contempt of Parliament punishable by imprisonment in the Tower of London.
The Bar tried this some years ago in relation to Contingency Fee Agreements and the Speaker of the House f Commons referred to Section 57 Solicitors Act 1974 and that was that.
Commented on: 7 July 2025
SEND reform, legal rights and Whitehall's weasel words