Report comment

Costs budgeting was always a solution in search of a problem. The old system,was generally very efficient and sparing of court resources. Only the party entitled to costs had to prepare a bill and the vast majority of claims were settled without a detailed cost assessment. Costs budgeting, by definition, is hugely wasteful because both parties have to prepare budgets despite the fact that only one is likely to recover costs. 50% of the costs of the process are simply wasted. Huge amounts of precious court time are taken up in every case caught by the regime compared with just a tiny handful of cases under the old system. Furthermore, under the old system, assessment was generally done by an expert, rather than by hard-pressed district judges or masters who are trying to crystal ball gaze about a case of which they know very little; and who often feel constrained to cut items from the budgets just to show they are earning their pay. If the old costs regime had to be reformed, giving the task to a Lord Justice of Appeal was the worst option as most have frighteningly little knowledge of the reality at the coal face. The fact that L J Jackson did not have the nous to foresee what this would do to the court system (especially at a time of government cuts) betrays how unsuitable he was for the task.