Report comment

The problem is access to justice. A fixed costs regime like Jackson LJ proposes is one possible approach. There could be others. For example, the old County Court scales could be revived.

Wealthy litigants will inevitably seek to outspend poorer opponents, and intimidate them economically. That happens now and has been the case in the 35 years I have been in practice.

A fixed costs regime could incorporate a measure of judicial oversight and discretion, such that in especially complicated cases the court could waive or moderate the fixed costs. This would however likely lead to some 'gaming' of the system.

Fixed costs could also lead to corners being cut, and more negligence claims, as some have commented. However, in time will not corner cutting become the standard of the reasonably competent solicitor?

The fundamental problem is that it is expensive to do things properly, and this expense denies justice to many (or so it is perceived). Should this continue? Or should the overall cost be controlled so more folks can have access to justice, even if it means the justice is perhaps a little rougher?

The Government's thinking on this issue has been muddled, to say the least: hiking the court fees as they have done is hardly improving access to justice; and the Woolf reforms and the tinkering since their introduction have not helped, as requiring more work in bringing or fighting a claim. And little things add up. For example, once upon a time a letter before action to an individual debtor could be short and direct, and take two minutes. Now, it is almost impossible for a letter to be less than two pages because of all the required information which must be given, including details of advice centres. Laudable, but not likely to make the process any cheaper.

The proposals may be more acceptable if they included fixed rates for counsel too. As it is, it has the whiff of judges (former barristers) protecting their own.