Report comment

The real discussion that has to take place is: Who pays?

Is it the loser, or is it the loser and the winner, or is it "no order for costs"?

With the important exception of the court fees, (which are always recoverable by the winner), in small claims track cases it is essentially "no order for costs" with each side shouldering their own legal fees and disbursements. We can argue about what is really a small claim, but I have found that it provides a rough and ready justice at an OK price ... and, I'll be honest, I don't care about people who get slightly injured and who will recover fully in a short space of time.

The problem with fast track and multi-track cases is that often both sides have an arguable case, and then the question that is worth asking is why a side that is for whatever reason unlucky should end up paying pretty well all the sometimes truly astronomical fees and disbursements ... and then, in my opinion, Lord Justice Jackson completely failed to address one of the main flaws in the English legal system: its fabulous expense. As currently structured it is an expensive legal system, but it does not have to be this expensive, or at least I don't think so.

I know from my own experience of working in two very different legal systems, one cheap and another expensive, that injustices happen in both with the difference that in the expensive legal system costs in themselves form another source of injustice.

So, yes, Lord Justice Jackson did some things that were OK, but overall I would have to say that he failed in his mission.