Mon06262017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Brian Barr Solicitors

Brian Barr Solicitors

Steven Akerman offers alternatives to the costs proposals being considered in Lord Justice Jackson’s review

In advance of Lord Justice Jackson’s impending review on fixed recoverable costs, I took the pragmatic view that as change is most definitely coming, we, as litigators, may as well try to limit the damage and come up with a realistic alternative to fixed recoverable costs as the current proposals being considered will likely eviscerate access to justice, in my opinion.

In part two of his article Steven Akerman continues his assessment of section 57’s incompatibility with human rights

The first part of this article examined the legislation of s57 and Article 6 of the Human Rights Act (Art 6 – one’s right to a fair trial) and of Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1 – right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property) and the conflict between them, highlighted in Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers [2012].

Steven Akerman examines the conflict between the new striking out powers and the Human Rights Act, in part one of this article he looks at the legislation

The full effect of the Jackson reforms has yet to be fully realised in the personal injury sector. None the less, personal injury lawyers have to come to terms with another seismic change in the personal injury landscape. I refer to the provision in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 that directs the court to strike out the entirety of a personal injury claim should any element of the said claim be ‘fundamentally dishonest’.