REUTERS | Copyrighted
September 22, 2020

Simplifying CPR 81: contempt of court

Since its introduction in 2012, CPR 81, an unhappy, complex and repetitive mix of procedural and substantive law, has been subject to significant criticism. As Dame Victoria Sharp (President of the Queen’s Bench Division) noted in Attorney-General v Yaxley-Lennon, at paragraph 97, it had “been examined and found wanting” on a number of occasions. Following work by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) in 2019 and a public consultation earlier this year (the 2020 consultation), it is to be replaced in its entirety on 1 October 2020.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Paul Hanna
September 17, 2020

Costs management: “teeing off” for the autumn

We have been living with budgeting and costs management for over seven years. There have been some unpleasant growing pains as practitioners have learnt the sometimes harsh reality of the significance of the rules, and a failure to comply with them.

I have been surprised that, whilst practitioners have adjusted to the need of budgeting, there is still a significant lag in the willingness to engage with the second part of the process: costs management. There appears to be relief once the first costs and case management conference (CCMC) has taken place and the budget is approved. Time to mop the brow and put the budget at the back of the file until the case concludes.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Jason Reed
September 15, 2020

Addressing the existential threat to litigation funding

Is the litigation funding industry under existential threat?

That’s certainly what some are suggesting following recent events in Australia, which culminated in the enactment of legislation headlined, “Litigation funders to be regulated”. While that may seem an overreaction to what is regulation only for Australia class actions (and who can blame them given the recent boom of this market?), the inquiry into litigation funding by the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Service laid bare a deeper objection to the industry. And the transcripts seem to add weight to claims that there are global commercial interests wanting to limit the influence of (or in the words of one funder, “destroy”) litigation funding.

Continue reading →