Rule committee opposed elements of FRC reforms, minutes show

Ridgway: Ill-judged reform

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) rejected some of the government proposals to amend the extended fixed recoverable costs regime that will come into force this year, it has emerged.

In response, the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) has urged the government to “pause” implementation while the objections are considered further.

Minutes from the CPRC’s December meeting, published last week, said chair Lord Justice Birss, deputy head of civil justice, was “unconvinced” of the need for new rules on FRC for costs assessments in the new regime and for part 8 costs-only proceedings.

Nonetheless, the Ministry of Justice announced earlier this month that they would go ahead, although – unlike all the other changes which it had consulted on, which are being implemented in April – they would not happen until October to give the CPRC time to draft the rules.

The short consultation response issued by the MoJ did not mention that the CPRC expressly refused to adopt these two changes.

The minutes said: “It was explained that the aim of the proposed new procedure was to produce a specific process for fixed costs determination where there is a need for something to be done.

“The drafting has been formed from the concept that there is agreement on all issues other than costs, but there is also a need to cover circumstances when the court cannot make a summary determination at the end of proceedings.

“Essentially, the reform amounted to a bespoke carve out, from the existing and well-established current procedure, for determining fixed costs in future. Some elements were devised following representations from users (the Forum of Insurance Lawyers).

“The chair was unconvinced of the need, in practice, for a lengthy new process involving rule and PD amendments, in addition to a proposed new costs precedent form. If there is a gap to be addressed within the rules, the solution should be efficient and simple.

“Other members raised concern that all cases could end up going into the proposed new process, which is not the intention. The prospect of further unintended consequences were also raised. Overall, there was unease with adopting the proposal in its current form, if at all.”

The committee ended up deciding not to adopt the proposed reforms in relation to fixed costs determinations.

The minutes said: “The committee was mindful of the potential impact on the courts, the existing duty to deal with cases in the context of the overriding objective and that, ultimately, judges have inherent case management powers to deal with matters appropriately in the interest of justice. An additional and lengthy new procedure was not merited at this time.”

It also did not adopt fixing costs of costs-only part 8 claims, while noting that “further revised drafting may return in due course”.

ACL chair Jack Ridgway said: “We are deeply concerned to learn that the Ministry of Justice is pressing ahead with the proposals on fixed costs in costs matters despite the rule committee rejecting them. It is unusual to see the committee push back on policy in this way and officials should be listening, not barreling on.

“The very brief summary contained in the consultation response on the FRC changes failed to reflect the rule committee’s view, which is another worry.

“We urge the Ministry of Justice to pause this ill-judged reform and speak to the experts about how best to deal with the issue they are trying to address. The ACL stands ready to assist.”

An MoJ spokesman said: “Our reforms on fixed recoverable costs give all parties certainty upfront and ensure no one is locked out of justice for fear of how high their legal costs might be if they lose. We will continue to monitor their implementation.”

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


A paean to pupils and pupillage

To outsiders, it may seem that it’s our horsehair wigs and Victorian starched collars that are the most unusual thing about the barristers’ profession. I would actually suggest it’s our training.

Five ways to maintain your mental health at the Bar

Stress, burnout and isolation are prevalent concerns for both chambers members and staff. These initial challenges may serve as precursors for more severe conditions, such as depression and anxiety.

Accessibility in law: why meritocracy is key for change

Despite the sector’s efforts over the years to improve accessibility from the bottom up, it’s clear that, sadly, there’s still a lot of work to be done.

Loading animation