Report comment

Why should the aim be 'to reduce costs'? Surely the amount of costs should be based on reasonable charges for work that was reasonably and necessarily carried out in order to conduct a matter? In this day and age no paying party can say (with a straight face) that they don't understand the consequences of turning a run of the mill case into something wholly more onerous before ultimately conceding.

I have an interest in the fixed costs scheme not being extended, but even if I did not I cannot see that these proposals benefit anybody except paying parties (in particular insurers).