Report comment

All this scheme would do is to cap the losing party's liability to pay third party costs to the winning party. It means that the winning party would have to pay more unless it's also proposed that its solicitor and own client costs similarly should be capped. The only benificiary is the losing party. Where's the justice in that? How does that secure 'a reduction in legal costs' for small and medium-sized enterprises (who often comprise both sides to litigation).

It's hard to avoid seeing a subtext to this scheme which is that solicitors should provide more for less without any sacrifice of time, quality or standards. I'd like to get that from my electrician, plumber and builder - but I'm smart enough to realise that pigs will fly first. So why expect it from solicitors?