Report comment

Yes. The first step is to have some indication from the courts as to what, in an "ordinary" case (i.e. where the other factors to be taken into account aren't engaged or are at an unremarkable level), will be considered a reasonable multiplier of the "sum in issue in the proceedings". Is it reasonable to incur (and expect to recover from the other side if successful) costs of half as much as the sum in issue, the same amount as the sum in issue, double the amount of the sum in issue, or what? The courts must be able to give a steer on this.

The next most important issue, it seems to me, is how this multiplier will then be affected by the "complexity of the litigation". If interpreted very broadly, this factor could give a "get out of jail free" card, allowing the costs to increase to whatever level is reasonable necessary to cover the steps that were (or will be) reasonably necessary in the litigation, but this can't be the intention, as in this case the proportionality principle falls away entirely and we are back to the pre-Jackson assessment simply of reasonableness.

Issues about non-monetary relief, any additional work generated by the paying party (which I would take to mean costs run up because of unreasonable behaviour by the other side) and the wider importance of the case, will come up for consideration somewhat less frequently (although by no means very rarely).

It seems almost negligent (in the non-technical sense of the word) to have left all of this simply to be filled in by case law.