Mixed reaction to postponement of Jackson reforms

There has been a mixed reaction to the government's announcement that implementation of Jackson reforms will be postponed until April 2013 to coincide with the legal aid cuts.

In the latest committee stage debate in the House of Lords on the legal aid bill, government minister Lord Wallace also told peers that the government expects the insurance market to 'respond positively' to the Jackson reforms.

'It is easy to say ahead of an event that all sorts of appalling things will happen, but after 1999 the market certainly adjusted to the opportunities with ATE premiums, and it is not surprising that those who wish to maintain the status quo are making substantial representations to that effect,' Lord Wallace said.

'Ministry of Justice ministers and officials have met a substantial number of different insurers as the proposals have been developed since Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations were published.

'Although some providers have said publicly that they will pull out of the ATE market if the changes go ahead, others have indicated that they will look positively at developing products which meet market needs as the details of the proposals are finalised.'

Lord Wallace rejected amendments that would have inserted clauses on the ten per cent increase in general damages and the introduction of QOCS (qualified one-way costs shifting) into the bill. In answer to an oral question from Conservative peer Lord Faulks, Lord Wallace said that bereavement damages would be increased by ten per cent, in line with the increase in general damages.

Don Clarke, president of FOIL, said: 'It is disappointing that it looks as though the implementation of the reforms will now be delayed until April 2013.

'However, a six-month delay is preferable to a piecemeal implementation that fails to deliver the key elements of Jackson as an interlocking package.'

Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said the delay would bring a 'welcome breathing space' for the MoJ to properly consider the damaging effect that the changes to conditional fees would have on access to justice, particularly for middle England and those ineligible for legal aid.

'The changes are complex and have been selected from a recent report from Lord Justice Jackson '“ despite his warning not to 'cherry pick' from the report.

'As presently conceived, we fear that the changes will advance the interests of insurance companies at the cost of access to justice and fairness. This delay gives time to pause and reconsider.'

A spokesman for APIL said the original implementation date of the Jackson proposals was 'always ambitious' and an impending delay had been an open secret.

'Because a lot of the changes will need to be implemented through the Civil Procedure Rules, it's important that they are given enough time to be properly considered to avoid any potential satellite litigation.'

However, he welcomed the increase in bereavement damages, which were 'known to be too low and needed to be increased'.

Earlier, Lord Thomas, a Lib Dem peer, said 'a sensible way to go forward' would be to split the burden of the insurance premium and 'the corks from the champagne bottles will be popping down in the City' when people realised that the burden would fall entirely upon the claimant.

'There would be advantages both ways in splitting the premium,' he said. 'First, there would be an incentive for the claimant to ensure that premiums are not too high and are not, as at the moment, left completely in the air. On the other hand, if you split the premium in the staged way that my amendment proposes, there would be a great incentive on the defendants to settle.'