Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

To defend the system he has helped to shape, suggests simple conceit and wilful blindness
Many lawyers are not resistant to change- rather they are resistant to poorly thought out changes which should have been dealt with in a much more intelligent manner

The ultimate aim of controlling costs, or introducing fixed fees is a laudable one .
However Dyson & Co conflated that aim, with the separate aim of making parties comply with court directions -and the judicial created Mitchell chaos ensued and will impact on all court users until this latest judicial conceit is abolished and reformed
If the aim was to control or cap costs- a simply direction at the first CMC or at allocation where both parties can suggest a cap to their and their opponents costs (within overall limits proscribed by the court) would have sufficed -each party would need to apply to extend the cap if their or their opponents conduct threatened to breach it
How hard would that be?

Instead Dyson has created a whole new shamanistic cult on costs budgets where the parties are meant to second guess what the future will hold, and then stick rigidly too -beholden to the 'wisdom' of a Judge who will be in no better and probably a worse position to judge the case in the short time allotted to them to assess it - and in the end the parties will proceed to a detailed assessment anyway - but with the additional costs incurred preparing almanac budgets wasting the time of the lawyers and the judges who have to sit through the whole farce of it all
The sooner fixed fees for litigation are introduced, the better




Your details

Cancel