Report comment

Jackson was given a difficult task. All these personal attacks on him say more about those that make them than about the man himself. Like the Woolf reforms, the result of the Jackson changes is a bit of a curate's egg. Good in parts. Some sort of budgetting may be good, the obsession with detail, less so. The energy expended in trying to reduce costs is laudable, but the finished product is misconceived, counter productive and with unintended consequences.

Draconian penalties for minor infringements damage trust and inhibit collaboration between legal teams. Procedural forfeiture of the kind that results in a Mitchell type decision is a step too far. It destroys any lingering hope of co-operation. It is a breach of Article 6 ECHR.

The slide downhill started long ago with Woolf's introduction of heavy handed detailed case management by the court. From that point onwards, those responsible for writing the rules set off in the wrong direction. Detailed case management by the court should not be necessary unless one of the parties requests it, or where unrepresented parties are involved. It stymies flexibility, inhibits the use of common sense and greatly increases the cost. A light touch is all that's called for. As it happens, many DJs understand this and are too busy, or too sensible to engage in detailed case management.

Next time there's a rethink of the rules of procedure, they might wish to consider ways of reducing the administrative burden of running a case, which nowadays accounts for so much of the cost. The simpler the procedure, the more time is available to concentrate on the issues in the case and the more cost effective the process of dispute resolution becomes.

Life would be easier, and cheaper, and less fraught, if the rules were simplified, shrinking them to no more than a third of their current length. Get rid of PDs. Much of what they contain is a repetition of the rule. Time is wasted looking in two places instead of one. Incorporate what they say, to the extent that it's necessary, into the rule.

Dispense with all but the most essential Pre-action Protocols. Edit those that survive. Above all, curb this tendency to prolixity where there's a rule, backed up, or confused, by a PD with a Protocol on top for good measure.

Take expert evidence for example. There's Part 35 (8 pages), PD35 (9 pages) and a Protocol annexed to the PD (24 pages). Total 41. If excessively wordy pleadings and witness statements are to be deplored, so also is prolixity in the rules.

Litigation will not be cost effective until the editor has vigorously deployed his blue pencil.