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

'Our aim is that losing parties should not be hit with disproportionately high legal costs, and people will be able to make more informed decisions on whether to take or defend legal action.'

Let's just take time to dissect this official line....

So the focus is on protecting the losing party. Surely of the two options, the losing party should come second when it comes to making protection based rules. Further, the losing party already has the protection of the Court. District Judges/Costs Judges/Costs Officers have been subjected to extensive Detailed Assessment training at the taxpayers expense. They undertake the task of ensuring that the losing party is adequately protected. As such, there is not a gap in that area that requires filling.

As for the idea that the proposed changes will enhance / promote certainty thus enabling people to make an informed decision on whether to take or defend a claim - surely that decision should come down to the merits of the proposed claim being pursued / faced. It should not be a commercial decision based on potential financial exposure.

When our law makers regurgitate the drivel fed to them by the insurance industry and claim that costs are "disproportionately" high, if they struggle to understand the concept of "disproportionality" they only need to take a look at issue fees.

In short, unbeknownst to our new Lord Chancellor, we already have a system in place which protects losing parties. To indicate the contrary is an insult to District Judges who have the unenviable task of trawling through bills and Points of dispute to ensure that the losing party is protected. It is right that they are protected. However, it is not right to seek to overprotect them as this will just give a green light to insurers to unnecessarily defend more cases than they currently do safe in the knowledge that there are less expensive costs consequences for them

And here's me thinking that the cabinet shake up might have brought about some new thinking.....

Your details

Cancel