Kerry Underwood


with 2 comments

I am trekking in the Sahara Desert to raise money for the Lord’s Taverners’ cricket charity for disabled and disadvantaged children. If you find my blogs helpful how about making a donation? All donations go straight to the charity as the trekkers pay all of their own expenses. Please donate here.


This is all dealt with in my new book – Personal Injury Small Claims, Portals and Fixed Costs – which can be ordered here.


This post, with a slightly different house style, first appeared on the Practical Law Dispute Resolution Blog on 24 March 2017.


The horizontal and vertical extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs is being considered by Lord Justice Jackson, whose report is due by 31 July 2017.


The Government will then respond and consult, but is on record as supporting the spread of Fixed Recoverable Costs and thus the key issues will be the extent of the vertical extension, that is what value of claims will be covered, and the detail and amount of fixed costs for any piece of work.


Horizontal extension refers to other types of legal work. At present only personal injury work – and not all of that – is covered.


There is no significant judicial or political opposition to the revolution in the delivery of legal services, of which fixed costs are a part.


The Prisons and Courts Bill, which introduces massive changes, including online courts and severe curtailments of general damages in personal injury cases, received an unopposed Second Reading in the House of Commons on 20 March 2017.


Thus not a single member of Parliament from any party voted against these proposals and the same will almost certainly be true in relation to fixed costs.


Civil litigators need to recognise the reality that the issue is how and to what extent fixed costs come in, not whether they come in.


We can already be fairly sure of the date. In its response to the consultation paper on raising the small claims limit in personal injury matters the Government indicated that it intended to bring in all of the reforms together on 1 October 2018 and it is virtually certain that that will be the date when fixed costs come in for all types of civil litigation without exception.


The maximum damages cap being considered by Lord Justice Jackson is £250,000.00, but it may be that initially, on 1 October 2018, there will be a lower maximum figure, perhaps £100,000.00.


The current personal injury fixed costs scheme has the same upper limit as the fast track, that is £25,000.00.


Lord Justice Jackson has referred to spreading fixed costs to “the lower reaches of the multi-track” but is now considering having an Intermediate Track, possibly covering claims between £25,000.00 and £100,000.00.


It is anticipated that this track will have some of the features of the fast-track and some of the features of the multi-track.


Following the decision in Qader & Others v Esure Ltd & Khan v McGee [2016] EWCA Civ 1109, 16 November 2016 and rule 8(1) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017 – effective 6 April 2017 – any claim allocated to the multi-track ceases to be subject to fixed costs, both in relation to costs already incurred and future costs.

In these blogs I will look in much greater detail at specific areas, such as advocacy fees, the role of counsel, Part 36, indemnity costs, children’s cases and much more.


The reaction of lawyers to the concept of fixed costs in civil proceedings has been overwhelmingly negative and in particular the Law Society and the Bar Council have essentially refused to engage with the idea. In my view that is a huge mistake.


It should be self-evident that the purpose of the legal system is to serve litigants and potential litigants and not lawyers. Any lawyer who does not realise that legal costs are ludicrously expensive to the extent of excluding virtually the entire population, including small and medium sized businesses, is living in Fantasy Land.


A system whereby the potential adverse consequences for a client are fixed and certain, and where the client knows exactly what they will recover in the event of success allows clients, and indeed lawyers to budget and plan accordingly.


Also, once the tyranny of the hourly rate is escaped then lawyers are rewarded for their skill, expertise, speed and judgment and not for ploughing through hundreds of thousands of pages of meaningless documents.


Good lawyers will benefit; the plodders will lose out. So what?


Fixed Recoverable Costs remove the need for budgets, costs draftsmen and time recording and judgments about which level of fee earner is appropriate for the work.


In employment work and family work there are generally no recoverable costs in any event and in most personal injury cases, over 90% – costs are already fixed.


In the personal injury field Fixed Recoverable Costs work and they have changed the behaviour of lawyers for the better. The same will happen with general civil litigation.


A key issue will be the extent to which the process of litigation is re-engineered to make it more efficient and to allow lawyers to both reduce and quantify costs in advance, and still make a profit. The Prisons and Courts Bill, currently before Parliament, is the key measure in this regard.


A measure of how far we have to go can be shown by the case of Thompson v Reeve (1) The Motor Insurance Bureau (2) Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust (3), 20 March 2017, Claim number HQ14P03864 – Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court.


The claimant had by email withdrawn a Part 36 offer and the defendants argued that that was an invalid withdrawal as they had not consented to service by email and therefore they were free to accept the apparently withdrawn offer.
The court accepted that that was the position but granted the claimant relief from sanctions, thus curing the bad service.
That a court needs to do that in 2017 is madness. Any lawyer, business or organisation not accepting service by email should not be allowed to participate in the litigation process.


There are a whole load of legal dinosaurs and the sooner they are extinct the better.


Written by kerryunderwood

March 30, 2017 at 8:37 am

Posted in Uncategorized

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Morning
    Can I pick your brains whilst you are plodding through the desert please?
    If a post 2013 Fast Track Case which would usually attract fixed costs is issued and a request for a split liability trial is made. The liability trial takes place and the Claimant is successful and directions are then issued for the quantum element. No Part 36 offers are made and the claim is negotiated. Am I entitled to more than the Fixed Costs for trial and percentage of damages please as effectively we have concluded one aspect of the case but obviously there is further work on the quantum side of the case?

    Melanie Stewart

    March 30, 2017 at 8:42 am

    • Melanie

      No. Fixed Costs are just that – although a split trial could potentially be a reason for the court to exercise the escape clause. Clearly a split trial is inappropriate in a fast track case – arguably in any case. The whole point of fixed costs is that they are fixed and it is a swings and roundabouts scheme. Curiously I never get comments on the blog saying that very little work was done and so am I really entitled to the full fixed costs.



      April 4, 2017 at 6:25 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: