I am writing in response to the preliminary report of Lord Justice Jackson concerning civil costs reform. I act exclusively for claimants, mostly injured in work accidents.

First, the report does contain some refreshing aspects. It would be fairer if the claimant and not the defendant paid the success fee and the cost of litigation insurance. This was how the original conditional fee scheme worked. Clearly, the litigation process needs to be fairer to both sides. Making claimants more responsible for the costs (by paying the success fee and the litigation insurance premium) would greatly reduce the burden on defendant insurers. It would also make claimants aware that litigation is an expensive business.

Turning to the bad points, the introduction of fixed costs for all fast track personal injury cases is quite simply unfair in principle. Many of my clients are eastern Europeans working in the UK. Most of them speak little English. Many of them live in quite desperate circumstances. Inevitably, more time is required with such clients. Interpreters are needed. Many such clients work on building sites. Often in these cases there are several defendants, all blaming each other for the accident. The situation can become complicated. For the solicitor fighting such cases, fixed costs would reduce the available time, thereby undermining effectiveness. A fixed costs system would discriminate against these clients, who would be penalised for their ethnic backgrounds. Clearly, Lord Justice Jackson has travelled far, consulting with the highest officeholders in many overseas jurisdictions. Nevertheless, while rich in statistics, his report contains little appreciation of the desperation of many injured people living in modern Britain. Access to justice must always be the goal of any legal reforms. Fixed costs are not the answer.

Boris Kremer, Kremers, Gosport