 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Of special concern has been the acknowledged failure, so far, to bring litigation costs
down. Worse still, the problem of front-end loading of costs arising from introducing
measures such as the pre-action protocols has actually led to an increase in costs in
some cases.
(a)
In March 2001, the 3rd survey of the English Law Society's Woolf Network
found that 45% of respondents thought that front-loaded costs were a problem.
(b)
In February 2002, the 4th Woolf Network survey recorded 81% of respondents
as saying that they did not agree that the new procedures were cheaper for their
clients.
(c)
In its second Evaluation published in August 2002, entitled Further Findings
("LCD-FF"), the LCD suggested that it was still too early to provide a definitive
view on costs. However, it acknowledged that costs were a major problem :-
"A key criterion of the Access to Justice report was that litigation should be less expensive
and the costs more proportionate to the value and complexity of claims. There has been a
mixed response to the question of the effect of the reforms on the cost of litigation although
there is growing evidence of an increase in at least some areas. For example, 45% of
respondents to the Law Society Woolf Network 3rd survey said that front-loading of costs
was a problem."
(d)
Lord Justice May was cited as having highlighted costs "as the biggest problem
which could endanger the success of the CPR."
Notes
A group of some 130 solicitors who agreed to be polled by the Law Society on their perception of
the CPR's operation (initially twice yearly, later yearly) as a means of monitoring the reforms.
At §7.2.
LCD-FF §7.3.
|
 |
|