Report comment

I like how his 'open minded' review of the impact of fixed recoverable costs will include "how high the regime... should go, what categories of case..." etc etc

So it's not a review of the impact. A review of the impact would imply looking at the regime from a completely impartial, subjective viewpoint to see whether and to whom it has been beneficial or detrimental, and weighing up whether those benefits/detriments are reasonable and acceptable bearing in mind the overall requirement to provide people with access to justice. If that impartial and subjective review were to find that the system is working perfectly in all ways and/or that any detrimental effects are sufficiently and significantly outweighed by any beneficial effects, then and only then should any consideration be given to whether and to what extent it should be expanded.

It sounds (although I would never suggest such a thing as being the case) that a finding that the impact of fixed recoverable costs has been more than satisfactory is a foregone conclusion - as others have suggested I suspect there will be a brief going through the motions, plenty of self back patting followed by an announcement on the expansion of the regime, largely or wholly in line with what LJ Jackson (and the insurance industry) has pushed for all along.

Farewell 16 year career as a Law Costs Draftsman, it's been emotional...