<?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; Jackson Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&#038;cat=6" 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>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>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>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>
		<item>
		<title>One-way Cost-shifting</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=62</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=62#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost shifting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=62</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Perhaps most radically, Lord Justice Jackson suggests that one-way cost shifting might be introduced for certain types of claim (especially personal injury claims).  The principle reason for this is a straightforward assessment that defendants in personal injury claims pay out significantly more in ATE premiums on cases that they lose than they get back in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=62</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fixed costs (fast track and beyond?)</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=55</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=55#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:17:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Moorhead</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lord Justice Jackson is plainly interested in extending fixed costs beyond the predictable costs regime for RTA cases settling pre-issue for less than £10,000 for both base costs and success fees.  Para 1.1 of Part V, page 203 reads:   “I have canvassed views from my panel of assessors and it is our unanimous view [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=55</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US-Style Contingency Fees in England and Wales</title>
		<link>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=46</link>
		<comments>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?p=46#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:19:44 +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>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://civiljustice.wordpress.com/?p=46</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The introduction of damage-based contingency fees into litigation, where a lawyer is paid nothing if they lose and a percentage of damages if they win is a live issue again.    Jackson’s preliminary report gives a short but well-balanced summary of the arguments for and against damage-based contingency fees.  The tenor of the report suggests [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.civiljusticeblog.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=46</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
