Wednesday 15 May 2013

The Jackson reforms


New obligations for experts

New reforms of the justice system came into effect on the 1st April 2013. Lord Justice Jackson was tasked with reviewing the current way in which costs of civil litigation are managed in an attempt to introduce “proportionality” to the costs of going to court. The new rules will also curtail “no win no fee” arrangements and referral fees will be banned.

How does this all affect the expert witness?

Prior to this change the costs of a claim grew through the case and were largely uncontrolled. Post reform costs must be proportionate and also have been reasonably incurred both in terms of relevance and also the claim size. The court will only allow costs that are proportionate and where they relate to the matters of the case.

On this basis, costs related to fees will be assessed by the court and if the total figure for costs is not regarded as proportionate the court will make an appropriate reduction, experts need to beware! It is essential that experts properly prepare fair, reasonable and “proportionate” fee estimates for their instructing solicitors to ensure that professional fees are not reduced at the end of the case, taking into account that they should be reporting on the key issues and not addressing matters that are of little relevance to the synthesis of the case.

Other Jackson reforms affecting the expert witness

Additionally Jackson formalised the concept of concurrent expert evidence, “hot-tubbing” in an effort to reduce time and cost. This process involves the experts giving evidence concurrently and should enable the courts to focus on the synthesis of the case and get at the relevant facts.

Comment

Nick Bevan, Chartered Building Surveyor and experienced expert witness says “I have experienced hot-tubbing first hand and found the process to be highly beneficial in the desire to achieve speed and justice. It gave the experts the opportunity to be jointly cross examined by both the Judge and Counsel and I’m sure significantly reduced the time spent in Court. As for fee estimates, my view is that some experts fear compression of professional fees but I’m firmly of the view that most experts are already providing good value for money and are providing detailed estimates for their services, so the reality is going to be no different post 1st April than was the position prior to the reforms. The expert’s duty is to the Court so providing a good service for proportionate fees is merely part of that process”

No comments:

Post a Comment