Legal Business

Jackson – Light at the end of the tunnel?

 MARKET VIEW – LITIGATION 

Enyo Law’s Peter Fitzpatrick, Annabel Thomas and Lauren Gash analyse how the Jackson reforms are bedding down a year after they came into force

Over a year has passed since the Jackson reforms came into force in April 2013 under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. Like the Woolf reforms before them, the aim of the reforms was to cut the cost of civil litigation and streamline cases, reducing the use of court time and encouraging early settlement.

Unsurprisingly, particularly in the light of the reforms’ radical nature, problems with the underlying legislation and inconsistencies in judicial application of the new rules, the success of the reforms (and, more importantly, their impact on how companies could and should litigate) has to date been mixed. Some costs of litigation have actually increased as a result of the reforms, as has the burden on in-house counsel. Fifteen months on, the current key points for in-house counsel either considering litigating or defending a claim are as follows:

Procedural Reforms

‘It is clear that the Jackson Reforms still have some distance to go before they bed down.’
Peter Fitzpatrick, Enyo

Funding

Conclusion

It is clear that the Jackson Reforms still have some distance to go before they bed down. The fact that the Civil Justice Council has put together a working group to consider and advise on issues arising out of the reforms is reassuring and concerning in equal measure. Underlying the courts’ approach is the need as set out in the Civil Procedure Rules for litigation to be conducted at proportionate cost. What constitutes proportionality remains debatable and is being developed on a case-by-case basis. In the meantime, in-house counsel should minimise the risk of satellite litigation so far as is possible by ongoing and close monitoring of court deadlines and costs budgets, and keeping the overall quantum of claims under constant review.

‘Some costs of litigation have actually increased as a result of the reforms, as has the burden on in-house counsel.’

About the authors
Peter Fitzpatrick has 27 years experience of handling and resolving complex commercial disputes through litigation, arbitration and ADR. His areas of expertise include aviation litigation; banking litigation; professional negligence; and insurance coverage disputes resolved through arbitration.

Annabel Thomas has a broad commercial disputes practice, with a strong emphasis on civil fraud. She has substantial experience of high-value cross-border litigation, including arbitration and mediation. Annabel is also a regular speaker and commentator on litigation funding issues and the Jackson reforms.

Lauren Gash has experience of handling and resolving complex commercial disputes through litigation, arbitration and ADR. Lauren is also a regular speaker and commentator on litigation funding issues and the Jackson reforms.

About Enyo Law
Enyo Law is a dynamic specialist litigation law firm based in the heart of London. We are conflict free and one of the largest litigation-only firms in the City. We are the natural choice for clients involved in disputes that would present conflicts for the major City law firms that have substantial transactional practices representing financial institutions.