<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Civil Justice Blog &#187; Costs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&#038;cat=5" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org</link>
	<description>Current issues in civil justice in the UK and around the World</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:50:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>3P Funding&#8230;.</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=183</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=183#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:40:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Party Funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Lawyer reports a new entrant into the market for third party funding, interesting because its reportedly not confining itself to higher value cases.
Claimants will be asked to pay a flat fee together with a daily interest rate, which will be halted on repayment.   The story doesn&#8217;t specify what the interest is payable on: presumably [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=183</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Regulating contingency fees</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=124</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=124#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:18:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contingency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contingency fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost shifting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal costs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With the government consulting on the regulation of damage based agreements (DBAs more commonly known as contingency fees) and the Jackson Review also seeking views on whether to introduce them into litigation and if so how to regulate them (key points summarised here), it is worth considering how such agreements might need regulating.  This post considers:

Regulating the percentage fee
Charging ‘extras’
Undersettlement
Handcuff clauses
Choosing between funding
Improving information to consumers
Recoverability
Cross-sectoral as opposed to profession specific regulation
Whether regulation should be different for sophisticated clients]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=124</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contingency Fees to be regulated&#8230;?</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=114</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=114#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contingency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contingency fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The government is consulting on regulating the current use of &#8216;damage based agreements&#8217; (contingency fees) for consumer protection purposes. The three areas in which they are considering regulation are:

the provision of clear and transparent information to consumers under DBAs, on all costs and expenses and alternative methods of funding;
regulating  a maximum % of the damages [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=114</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recoverability of Success Fees and ATE</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=108</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=108#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost shifting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal costs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lord Justice Jackson, whilst maintaining his open-mindedness, gives a fairly firm steer away from the idea that a claimant’s damages in personal injury cases should be sacrosanct.  Whilst he notes APIL’s opposition to it and also accepting that it might be established consumer expectation that they receive 100% of their damages, he points out that:

some [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=108</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ADR</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=104</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=104#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ADR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal costs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lord Justice Jackson does not appear minded to suggest steps to strengthen the role of ADR in civil disputes.  His tentative view is that parties in commercial cases can be relied on to take decisions in their own interests and that there might be more done to improve the consumer education on and delivery of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=104</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Witness Statements</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=98</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=98#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:13:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal costs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=98</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The requirements to exchange witness statements and the norm that they should stand as evidence I chief comes in for some critique, partly for reasons other than costs (there is speculation they may be associated with witness ‘training’ (coaching), para. 3.9, page 404) but partly because cases often settle after witness statements are prepared but [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=98</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Collective Actions</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=88</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=88#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collective actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal costs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=88</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Debates are surfacing on collective actions on a number of fronts.  The Civil Justice Council in particular has reported on this recently and the EC is looking closely at consumer redress with collective actions in mind.
Lord Justic Jackson side-steps issues of whether collective actions should be opt-in or opt-out as beyond his remit and turns [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=88</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contingency Fees, BTE, TU and &#039;normal&#039; fees &#8211; New Research</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=80</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=80#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contingency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contingency fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost shifting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=80</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have a new research study published by the Deaprtment for Business Innovation and Skills.  Authored with Rebecca Cumming it looks at claimant perspective on their lawyer fee arrangements in Employment Tribunal claims.
It is the first study that we are aware of to compare client perspectives on four methods of funding: trade union funding; legal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=80</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Changing the way general damages are assessed</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=71</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=71#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=71</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Changing damages assessment
Lord Justice Jackson’s report suggests that a move towards more tariff and points-based systems of general damages be considered.  This is not only designed to reduce cost, but to improve consistency within the system and to reduce problems of undersettlement. Chapter 27 discusses systems in other jurisdictions, which Jackson notes appear to be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=71</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Referral Fees</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=68</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=68#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contingency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no win no fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contingency fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=68</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lord Justice Jackson is plainly concerned about referral fees, as are a number of the interest groups he spoke too (including APIL, MASS (the Motor Accidents Solicitors Society).  The trade in cases is plainly seen as driving up costs and significant doubts are raised over the claim that the associated practices of advertising and claims [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=68</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
