LSLA's position on full cost recovery

The LSLA welcomes the opportunity to be involved in the present consultation.  However, it should be emphasised that the LSLA has been consistently opposed to the principle of full cost recovery and attention is drawn to the LSLA's response to consultation paper CP5/07, dated 25th June 2007, in which that opposition and the detailed reasons behind it, are clearly set out.  Furthermore, although the present consultation paper stresses that the  principle is not the subject of the present consultation, and although the concept of full cost recovery may not be open to challenge, the way in which full cost recovery is calculated (for example including nominal rent for buildings already owned) remains objectionable.

Civil Court Fees and Family Court Fees

Subject to the LSLA's opposition both to the principle of full cost recovery and to the method of calculating that cost, the LSLA has no objection to the proposed fees for the Civil Court and the Family Court set out in Annex A to the consultation paper.

Magistrates' Courts fees

Again subject to the objections stated above, the LSLA does not have sufficient experience to justify commenting in detail on the proposed fees in the Magistrates' Courts.

Future steps

The consultation paper refers in its executive summary to proposed future steps.  One of these is the development of hearing fees, including the possibility of daily hearing fees in large commercial cases.  Even though this topic is not part of the consultation exercise covered by CP31/08, it would be wrong not to record in this response the LSLA's concerns about hearing fees and the LSLAs deeply-rooted belief that daily hearing fees would be both objectionable, particularly if limited to large commercial cases, and counter-productive; in addition to the reasoning set out in the LSLA's response to consultation paper CP5/07, the primary reason for this opposition is that it is generally in the large commercial cases where the parties have at least some flexibility in the choice of litigation forum and if the imposition of daily court fees has the effect, as is justifiably feared, of driving the large commercial cases away from England to other jurisdictions, the initiative may well result in very little revenue being derived from daily court fees and will certainly reduce invisible earnings by reducing the extent to which major commercial entities worldwide make use of London and the English legal profession for litigation.

Questionnaire Answers

Q1:      Subject to the comments above particularly in connection with cost, the LSLA does not object to the proposed fee changes.

Q2:      No.

Q3-5:   No comment.

The LSLA looks forward to the opportunity to be consulted in connection with any future steps in connection with court fees, and generally.

4th March 2009

LSLA_response_to_Jackson_Costs_review.pdf

Controlling Costs in Defamation Proceedings- LSLA Response to Consultation CP4/09 May 2009

Solicitor Advocate Higher Court Rights- LSLA Response to SRA Consultation April 2009