Costs rules for high-value complex commercial cases could be amended after the judge in charge of a wide-ranging review of civil litigation costs opened the door for reforms.

Despite opposition from the Commercial Court Users Committee (CCUC), which is carrying out its own review of costs, Lord Justice Jackson says in his preliminary report that the Commercial Court is ‘not a sacred territory’.

The CCUC took a firm stance against changing the existing costs regime following a 2007 report by a working party which looked at costs rules in the wake of the BCCI and Equitable Life cases.

The CCUC represents judges, solicitors, barristers and clients who use the Commercial Court.

Jackson published a preliminary report on his review of civil litigation costs last week. His review is now in its second consultation phase. A final report will be presented to the government by the end of the year.

Ted Greeno, litigation and arbitration partner at City firm Herbert Smith, suggested that contingency fees for collective actions before the Commercial Court could be introduced. ‘When conditional fees were introduced, they effectively broke the taboo surrounding the lawyer’s conflict of interest in managing cases and managing his fees,’ he said.

On costs-shifting, Greeno said there is a ‘clear view’ among Commercial Court users and clients that the current regime, where the losing party bears the full cost of litigation, should be retained. ‘He [Jackson] has recognised that, for larger cases, costs are driven by the procedure,’ he said. ‘If contingency fees are introduced, the current costs-shifting regime must be retained.’