The costs conundrum continues

Defendant insurance lawyers are apparently already using the Lords' ruling in an effort to influence the thinking of district and costs judges

Why did the House of Lords spend a year ruminating on Callery v Gray only to decide that it was not the appropriate forum to monitor the conditional fee and after-the-event insurance market? It seems odd that the Lords gave leave only to decide, in effect, that it should not have done so.

Therefore, we must assume there was more to it than that, and that the many comments the judges made while dismissing the appeal should be carefully digested.

To say the Lords upheld the Court of Appeal's decision is literally true, but the tenor of the judgments expressed concern over the Appeal Court ruling and more generally over claimant personal injury practice.

Indeed, defendant insurance lawyers are apparently already using the Lords' ruling in an effort to influence the thinking of district and costs judges.

But the fact is that we are left with the Court of Appeal ruling, which has good and bad points for both sides.

This conflict shows little sign of abating - fixed costs are on the agenda but will not be a panacea unless claimant solicitors can be convinced of their value.

As last week's debate in London showed, this will take some doing.

A more immediate solution would be for the parties to resume the mediation process which was dropped last year.

But while they all talk about it being a good idea, there has been little sign they actually mean it.

Now is the time to translate words in action - for everyone's sake.