1. Stephen Lawson – APIL Secretary
Jackson Reaction
Stephen Lawson – APIL Secretary

2. 109 Recommendations

3. APIL Cornerstones of the System
Equal access to justice for all.
Polluter Pays
Public Confidence
Full Redress
Freedom of Choice

4. APIL Concern – Separating out PI from Civil Litigation

5. “It is not the function of this costs review to tinker with parts of the Civil Justice System which are thought to be working well and where costs are usually proportionate”
p274

6. “…high degree of satisfaction with the service provided by the Commercial Court to Court users”

7. Interview Building Magazine 2005

8. “How would you respond to Court users who complain about the time and money spent on litigation”

9. “Litigation in the TCC is bound to take time and is bound to be costly if the Judge is going to arrive at a just decision”

10. Three Rivers v Bank England 2006. Opening speech for Claimant 86 days
Opening speech for Defendant 119 day
Claimant’s Legal Costs = £38 million

11. Mr Justice Tomlinson: “I warned the Lord Chief Justice that I feared that the case had capacity to damage the reputation of our legal system”

12. Malmesbury v Strutt and Parker 2008 Damages £915,139. 00 Costs £5
Malmesbury v Strutt and Parker Damages £915, Costs £5.38 million

13. Multiplex v Cleveland Mr Justice Jackson: “At the end of March, both parties bicycled over the edge of the precipice and plunged into the abyss”

14. “Costs were escalating
“Costs were escalating. Huge amounts of management time were being deployed to no useful purpose. Neither party was going to escape from the abyss with any financial benefit.”

15. Get your tanks off our lawn!!

16. Not now dear!!

17. Let low value Claims Process settle down

18. But

19. “The level of general damages for personal injuries… should be increased by 10%”

21. Law Commission Report 257 - 1999

22. “Damages for non-pecuniary loss (over £3,000
“Damages for non-pecuniary loss (over £3,000.00) should be increased by at least 50%”

24. “Carver v BAA should be reversed”

25. “Where a Defendant rejects a Claimant’s offer but fails to do better at trial, the Claimant’s recovery should be enhanced by 10%”

26. “One Defendant Solicitor explained that too many insurers only make “colossus” offers which are too low “
p218

27. “The payment of referral fees for PI claims should be banned”

28. “… or capped at a modest figure which I suggest should be £200.00”

29. “it is offensive and wrong in principle for PI Claimants to be treated as a commodity”

30. LSB Research May 2010

31. “There was no evidence that referral fees in PI cases are causing consumer detriment”

32. One good case = £800.00

33. One good case = £200.00
Three bad cases = £200.00

34. One way Cost Shifting

35. “Costs ordered against a Claimant shall not exceed the amount (if any) which is a reasonable one for him to pay, having regard to all of the circumstances.
Including…

36. Financial resources of the Parties

37. Conduct

38. Uncertainty

39. “It’s a try on”

40. Abolition of recovery of Success Fees

41. “Presents an opportunity to cherry pick”

42. “Presents an opportunity to make excessive profits”

44. Analysed all cases concluded between May 07 and Feb 09

45. General Damages increase £11,532.00
Loss Success Fees £58,664.00

46. “PI Solicitors will be able to advertise the success fees they will charge”

48. “In my view, that disproportionate element of the costs cannot be saved even if the individual items within it were both reasonable and necessary”
p37

49. “I recommend that recoverable costs of cases in the fast track be fixed”

50. “I recommend that the same fixed costs regime should apply when costs are recoverable by Defendants”

51. No Fixed Costs No Fixed Process

52. Insurer letter 22-10-08 “We thank you for your recent letter of claim
Insurer letter “We thank you for your recent letter of claim.. We will provide our decision on liability within the time limit laid down in the Protocol”

53. Issue Proceedings

54. Defence

55. “No admissions whether Claimant sustained an injury whether as alleged or at all”

56. “It is denied the Defendant was negligent”

57. “It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of statutory duty”

58. “It is denied that any such negligence caused or contributed to the Claimant’s alleged injury”

59. “The Injury was not foreseeable”

60. “The Schedule of Special Damages is not admitted – strict proof each head of loss”

61. “The medical report is not admitted”

62. Guideline hourly rate should be retained

63. Injured person’s freedom to chose Solicitor

64. Abrogation of indemnity principle

65. Review of success fees for claims arising from Asbestos related disease

66. Retention and full recovery of ATE premiums

67. Access to Counsel to be retained and their fees recoverable as a disbursement

68. Ongoing promotion of rehabilitation

69. Sanction for non compliance with Protocols

70. No implementation of damages based assessment tool

71. Retention of the current small claims limit

72. Slicker Court Process
Pre-Action Disclosure
Compliance with orders
Better resourced Court

73. “A Plea”
Make the system work