Report comment

A simpler way to end the 'deadlock' may be to simply scrap the J-code bill and stick with what we've got. Like anon @ 2.03pm says, when properly drafted it does what it needs to, which is set out the costs in a logical way that provides a more than sufficient level of detail to enable each party to come to a decision as to what they consider reasonable and what they don't, and to try and achieve a compromise accordingly. There will always be disagreement, but I categorically fail to see how a more complicated bill is going to reduce the number of disagreements and/or number of matters that proceed to provisional assessment or a detailed assessment hearing. What is the REAL purpose of this new format? I can't see that it will save Court time or do away with arguments between the parties, so what purpose does it actually serve?