Report comment

This judgment is interseting for many reasons. Not least because this is a case of the judiary seemingly seeking to step on the toes of the Government (usually it is the other way around). The doctrine of separation of powers is being overlooked by the Courts as well as Parliament now.

The case indicates that success fees and ATE's could be found to be unlawful (despite them actually being lawful instruments born by way of statute).

In essence the Court seems to be saying that the costs in the case are ridiculously high. However as mentioned in other comments here, those costs are incurred to navigate the Court process. The rules of Court are issued by the Government of the day and hourly rates are set by the judiciary. To get from A to B in any litigation, costs have to be incurred. Sometimes these costs will appear excessive but if they were unavoidable, their "excessive" nature is irrelevant. In any event, the Courts have a process designed to look at costs closely and that is the Detailed Assessment process. Isn't it standard for costs in a case like Coventry to be referred to that process ? Apparently not - in this case the Court has decided to invite the Attorney General and any other (there will be a few) interested parties along so that the Supreme Court can have a look at whether they can throw the entire legal industry into total disarray by finding that the Government have breached the Article 6 rights of anyone who has ever signed a CFA .

(Notably, Para 43 of the Coventry judgment refers to the Jackson reforms being "a far less unsatisfactory system". Not the most complimentary wording but clearly the higher judiciary have concerns regarding the new system.)

Many of us had concerns regarding the 1997 CPR as we do about the 2012 rules. However, we're not the one's who get listened to. Instead, we have to pick up the pieces when eventually the higher judiciary realise that the Woolf and Jackson "reforms" were a poor replacement for the previous system of costs.

Get ready for the adverts "Have you had to pay a success fee or an insurance premium to your solicitors in the last 14 years...if so, you may be entitled to claim it back..." Problem is - how do you get paid for pursuing those claims ???

We shall have to await the outcome of Coventry to see whether we are all in for yet another unnecessarily rough ride....