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

I haven't read the case and only know what is set out in the article. Two points. First, Jackson LJ was not ruling in a case in which he has an interest. The old maxim 'nemo iudex' has no application.

Secondly, Jackson is reported as commenting that although the solicitor with conduct of the matter was "called away with personal difficulties", this appears to have counted for nought as it was "a firm of ‘significant size’ with more than 40 solicitors, [and] the court heard the case was handed to a trainee."

I know nothing of the firm, but I would not be surprised that in order to make the business at all profitable, there is little slack allowed in lawyers' workloads, and quite possibly no solicitor had capacity to take on the extra case. Hence the hapless trainee.

It is always desirable to have spare capacity, and certainly wise to do so, but with fees cut as they have been, the economics do not make obvious sense. I wonder if the limits on fees will lead to more such cases, as firms find they have to run at full capacity all the time in order to run business at all?

Your details

Cancel