The Law Society has issued a cautious response to the Civil Justice Council's (CJC) blueprint to overhaul the funding of litigation.

Though not necessarily opposed to proposals such as increasing the fast-track limit to £25,000 and considerably widening the fast-track fixed-fee scheme, the Society found a shortage of detail and justification in the CJC's report.


Issued to coincide with the recent CJC forum on the report, the response also had detailed reservations over several of the ideas, including a 'tariff' database to value general damages in small road traffic cases, greater sanctions for departing from estimates, a rebuttable presumption requiring budgets in large or complex proceedings, and wider use of before-the-event insurance.


On one of the headline recommendations, that regulated contingency fees be introduced as funding of last resort, the Society said fees must not be taken from damages.


'The line between providing access to justice and encouraging undesirable litigation can be a fine one, and any move to introduce contingency fees would need to consider whether there is a risk of a compensation culture emerging,' it continued.


Law Society President Kevin Martin welcomed the CJC's call not to increase the £1,000 small claims limit for personal injury and housing disrepair cases. 'Such a rise would mean many people will not be able to seek redress because the case is too complicated and costs are not recoverable,' he said, adding that the focus should be on simplifying the system.


At the forum itself, there was a largely negative response to raising the small claims limit, except from the defendant lobby, and even then there was an emphasis on improving the process first.


The Department for Constitutional Affairs is currently reviewing the small claims limit, and is also looking at improving IT and listing procedures for such claims.