We're looking at the Briggs reforms preparing your practice. Now, I should say that we're recording on releasing this webinar on in the beginning off 2020 on. The reason that we're putting a bit of a time almost is because we're in the moment off waiting for the M. O. J. To come back to us with some more information about the consultation period that has taken place over the preceding 18 to 24 months. But we haven't had it yet. So, folks, what we're hoping is that they will be able to tell us a little bit more about what is the timeline for the introduction off some of the reforms. Of course, some of them will be carrying on irrespective on. We'll look at those but the rial one that is that is, has us on the edge of our seats is the question off fixture comparable costs. So what we've done is we've prepared for you, uh, in this webinar, some pdf's and one of the p d efs that we've prepared for you. It's slight pact, which I hope you have on also a pdf off the document that is used by the Ministry in terms of the explanation of fix recoverable costs. So it is definitely worth having a look for that, because we were looking at some of the tables on it, which are too complicated to put in the slide pack. So you should have the cost consultation paper, which is downloaded as well as the slides. Okay, so we gotta work for about 55 minutes. So looking at the different reforms for preparation by your practice andare contents here, that data and all our the following fixed costs obviously, small claims. What's gonna happen to that? The impact of the online court, which is your you may No, you may not know, uh, you might have used it is up and running, but not to its fullest extent at this point, the fixed recoverable costs for the intermediate track. So we're going up to £100,000 there. So in county called fixed costs level, the four bands ringfencing fees, streamlining procedure. How does it work? P I and connect timescales and consultation capped costs in low value high court cases. And there is a cap costs practice direction That's, um, up and running as well. It's not have a huge amount of take up, but it is. It is going on that at the moment is not yet mandatory. It is just a sort of possible pilot scheme, so you don't have to do it on bond. Perhaps then we'll we'll take a few moments to consider what the implications are for our practices on. Hopefully, we'll get to my ideas about how to sort of take the next step intelligently forward. Well, while these things are on the carts, that is the link there for fixed, recoverable costs. It's the judiciary upload of fixing recoverable costs. It's it's a PdF. The supplemental report was July 2017. This has been happening since 2013. Can you believe that, Andi? It was part of the Jackson reforms so many years ago now on. The idea here was to carry out an independent review of the rules and principles governing the costs of civil litigation on to make recommendations in order to promote access to justice at proportionate costs and, of course, the B word. As I point out, judges, often in CPR one, the overriding objective occurs more than twice doesn't proportionality is has always been the watchword for the reforms since 2013 on. Part of that has been the cost budgeting Preston age, which were now well, living with in multi track. Um, but in order to sort of make things even more proportionate on to manage cases with so disparate, recover bility where the amount is not as much as the costs or even by supposed. This is the plan. So we have a look at what we're doing. There's my little matter. Look, he's running away with the money, which may be the wrong Nikon. I think to put on that slide because fix recoverable costs in fast track has been something that is part of CPR 45. And if you're doing personal injury, um, or similar, you'll be very used to this. You'll be greater this because you are the example that Jackson holds up to the rest of us in fast track to say, Well, I've done some work already with the portal on coming out of the portal into fixed costs there, and so people know what's to expect, said the rest of you, and that's gone really well. Well done, P I, you've You've made the way for the rest of us, so the rest of you now can align with personal injury on def urine. CPR 45. If your matter is properly fast track, you can have properly fixed costs. Of course, that means that we better see the scores on the doors. Judge. So what has happened is that there is now a grid for fr sees or fixed recoverable costs for all fast track cases. And there are four bands, and the idea here is where you land you land. There's no time recording. Andi. If you're unhappy with this, you can send your plant to the Online Solutions Court, the digital court that is embryonic form. At the moment on, there's an overlap because that digital online solutions called will have a jurisdiction off up to £25,000. Now there is provision for costs in the online call, but nothing like the amount that you get for fast track, which is nothing like the amount you'd get summary assessment, which is what we currently do At the end of the trial, we hand up those NT sixties and say, Please, can we have some more rather like rather like Oliver, so Shall we have a look folk? Shall we take our life in our hands? Is it on? Have a look at these figures just before we do. I have to say I think he's got a bit of a sense of humor has Jackson because he's handed it to Briggs. But Briggs is no longer the lead judge on that, either. So it's going through a number of judges here because he remembers the Lewis Carroll a story of Alice and Wonderland. I wonder if you could remember at the time has come. You said that in Alice in Wonderland. I'll tell you the end of the webinar that'll work away at the side of your brain. The time has come said, and you go dot, dot dot little googly When you okay, Why has the time come? Because falls track claims are a inherently simpler, not sure I voted contract law contract would Chambers and I don't think the value has got anything to do with the complexity, but it does kind of take the pressure off. You can give some work to the youngsters because it's art. Any fast track generally means you have to make you know snap decisions on bond. Just move it through very quickly without giving you the proper thought. It deserves up. The contractual point is still that I know you know this. You know, it's it's still the same, but just with less fewer notes. Okay, they're subject to simply procedure rules. The idea of a broad brush fixed costs is just on legitimate on their at greater risk of disposing. Because I agree with that. I think there is the whole problem about being the fast track is your heart sinks is you've got to do a lot of work for a little amount of proportionality. The equation is hugely different on it constitutes the a great majority of non small claims work. 80% of non small claims work are allocated to the faster. I didn't know that. So you know, we're in the 20% in multi track. Amazing, really, and when you actually get into the high call, you're in a tiny proportion off cases. So it's really in single figures, Michael work, and there's quite a lot of business that clearly we don't see that's happening in small claims. That's a huge part on that's what the Ministry of Justice have worried about and then unequally large amount in fast track. So I agree, he says with the view that recommend that all recoverable costs on the fast track should be fix. Well, So CPR. 45. Let's take our life in her hands and have a look at these bands. So Jackson has set out the band's there, there, you more useful in fast track than in the other sent. Of course we're going to look at because we have got a little bit more intel here. So we have four bands to go through the grid band one. As you can see rt a number beyond. I'm defended that Margie defended Deccan be congee quite tricky. Depends on the defendant. Doesn't ban to RT A within the protocol Holiday sickness band three rt A. Outside the protocol employers liability public liability possession, which has got tract housing disrepair and I love this other money claims your miscellaneous is going into three full liability disease other than noise induced hearing loss complex. Well, that's clear. Tracked possession has in disrepair, property, profit, egg and other claims, so there's obviously some play. Then between three and four on the play is between three and four in the fast track, rather than we'll see in the intermediate track, where the play is different between two of the bands. But they're, I think, most unless you're surging practical work, you're gonna London three and four. So the grid that we're going to have a look at in the moment off when we opened the pdf we can cope with the figures is a cumulative grid. In other words, it's a bit like snakes and ladders. When you've gone up the ladder or down the snake, you land where you land, but then part of the grid. So that's that. So it takes into consideration the fact that you're at the door of the court and you don't have to add up all the steps behind it. You are where you are. That's the figure. You then have some other elements off fixed, recoverable costs that have been ring fenced and the bar have been very vociferous about this. As you might imagine and said, Um, there is some reinventing for advisory work and advocacy work, but it's not necessarily a barrister that has to do it. You could perfectly well, do it even if you're not so, especially if you're not. So there's a sort of advocacy and advisory work that might have been sort of sent two bars, the junior bar that could be ring fenced. There is an escape clause, which I think we'll prevention for quite quickly, which I really don't more outbreaks. Recoverable girls. I'd like to be summarily assessed, not sure that you're going to get summer assessment. You might even have to say, I want to escape to detailed assessment because you know, it's a particularly special case, but there is a way of dis applying the fast track. And, of course, really what you're saying is it's not an escape from fixed, recoverable classes and escape from fast track. I want multi track on. It is fair to say that allocation is not just on the money alone. We forget that it is the value of the claim. But if you look at the allocation a lot of the savior, it does say the importance, the public sector and the public nature of it on the importance of the parties. There's a variety of six or seven elements. Their value is only one of them. But of course, really, these days, with the way in which the canticle particularly is administered, the people's triage tends to be on the basis off the value. Okay, just before we do take our hands, our hearts in our hands and we look at that dreadful. PdF with all the figures on go bit dulami. Just a word about housing claims that this is a little bit opaque at the moment. But the problem is we're going to increase small claims limit 48 to 5. So that's quite a big increase. And that's because the small claims, which is no plans to change that, folks. It's no order for costs other than in exceptional circumstances. Um, it has to be a pretty exceptional to get costs in the small claims school. But this fixed compensation for pain suffering awesome immunity as well, that sort of idea so that you there's less to argue about. Um, but the increase of the small claims limit is going to be quite significant for firms that are doing the bulk whiplash with claims consultants as well on, I think actually it is a little bit of a sort of pushing the claims consultant. End of the market. It probably isn't your into the market, but it certainly is that end of the market when bold claims are done by people are not lawyers. Usually, um, another types of P. I is increased in two and then increasing housing claims to three on bat needs much more looking at to see how that's going to work in practice. So we have got these changes that are coming about with these fixed tariffs on an increase in the amount that are being claimed. Okay, so the other thing before we look at those figures is that the medical negligence package has been reformed to because medical villages, everybody has sort of ring fenced and said, Look, this ought to be apart from a fast track because it's so serious and you know, that happened some very disturbing on serious elements of medical negligence. I agree with that. Of course, however, the problem is that Jackson's had a lot of information. Originally, Briggs to from Clinical practitioners, first front line clinicians who have, um, reviewed, um, the position with them. It does send them to pieces and having spoken to, you know, the medical defence union and other organisations that defend clinicians. It's the end of their careers. Some of them just don't ever come back from. They can't cope with it. And so what's happened is that the research shows that, you know things happen because everybody makes mistakes, but it can end a career. So he has really had the year off, clinicians. And of course, the bill to the NHS is so very considerable that he wants to have a simpler tests reliability. So it's quite a big route branch toe change on. On the one hand, you do want to say, Well, the claimant is now you know in a bad way, so we're not going to totally become defendant focused. But the idea is to here the Mednick alongside disciplinary matters, because often the disparate matter is just a way of putting the boot in by the claimant on the med neck. And it's unnecessary or adds to the sort of layers of complexity. So the Boland tests that we've lived with for years, and we still do use it in other forms of nether jumps, which is that a reasonable competence on with an aging population further stretching, the NHS is really having his eye on the public purse. There's a simplified liability test whether the patient has suffered reasonable, avoidable injury. The proposed test is significantly different to the current test, which focuses on of ordinary skill and care. On the new test. De personalizes the investigation of liability and makes it more of a corporate issue on DSO. The practical aspect of that is that the medical practitioners, and not necessarily name so everybody closes ranks. You know, it's a bit like when I do chancery stuff with companies and we have a kind of corporate with is a board and the board has collegiate liability in you don't pick out individual directors from the minute since I will, he said. And, she said, But there's that corporate liability, that collegiate liability I'm big on that centers around the board and that that's the idea that the individual is not kind of, you know, lampooned Andi set apart and never be takes fright on people put their confidence in the practitioner unless the internal investigation says otherwise and protect them against the claimant, the blood factors that all professional people make mistakes, they should not be so humiliated that they give up altogether. I personally I like that. It was a bright, you know, when we were as lawyers. We have things do insurers to deal with. And there is that depersonalization element topic, which doesn't seem to be quite the same in P I. And the when we look at clinic and the disciplinary element of it, that's what he's really doing. So So Rupert is called for various disciplinary tribunals to be abolished and bought within a general tribunal system in a new clinical chamber so that you hear the neg at the same time as any disciplinary. And they're then put together Andi, whether both disciplinary and civil litigation, that can hold a single fact finding. Because what happens if they get through one and they've got a face another on by that time that finishes them off. So that is sitting alongside colleagues with medical expertise. So again, moving judges into a sort tribunal system, whether the main the chair, as we used to say, is the lawyer and they're flanked on either side by medical practitioners who can throw light on this on the fixed costs would extend into that form so that it's a tribunal with fixed costs on the fixed cost regime would be able to cops manage the proceedings as well. Even if it wasn't fixed, they would have some form of precedent age, which would take into consideration the type of hearing on its seriousness. And then what he suggests a swell while we're on this clinic point because it is a really written branch changed too. It is compensation on fixed levels, um, with a more equal distribution of available funds between claimants Andi it addresses the current situation were a small number of claimants who have a no win no fee who are supported by large firms of solicitors who do this on Take a flyer on the recovery ability. Uh, recover high level of damages damages a tariff based, enabling an equitable distribution throughout the sort of pulped on DSO. A smaller proportion you get more would be replaced with a much fairer system in terms of damages. So it's making it at an easier for the claimants who possibly don't have, you know, significant legal resource is behind them. Onda um, it's compensation which has been fixed. So there's a tower of system. So everybody knows. So there's less heat and light about situation with just moving you through the system a bit quicker is routinely the idea about it and then the cost of this r regardless of whether they're suitable for fast track, intermediate or multi track, so that there is a single stand alone costs for clinical negligence claims on bond that would be up to 25,000. This is quite a significant reform. It's part of a working party. At the moment. It's developing obisbo process. But some very interesting ideas that I think of the rest of us who don't renege, who are looking at that reform. I can see it both ways. But the idea is to make it simpler. Okay, folks, now we did say a few slides ago before we got sidetracked onto Clin neg that we would have a look at this document. It's not an easy document toe. Have a look at on the document I want you to see. Please. Is this fixed? Recoverable costs Consul patient paint thinner. It might be helpful to have a look at it now because we need to get into that part of it that deals with fast track it. It's no the most enlightening read, it must be said, extending fixed recoverable costs in civil cases. Implementing Sir Rupert Jackson's proposals on Obviously you've got it now so you can read it later. But I did just want to say Chapter three, which begins on Page 13 of this document, comprises fast track, and it sorts out the grid, so we better have a little bit of a look at it, and he talks about what's happened and how the proposals have been put together. But in Chapter three, it it refers to the three tracks, and if you scroll down, you will get to various points. That package travel on the FL. C. Is that section five on you'll see on page 16 the beginning of the grid on what you'll notice immediately is you'll get stages down the left Andi complexity bands across the right, so the complexity band goes 1234 As we've discussed on the big thing to notice is the difference not so much in whether your 1000 to 10,000, 10 10,025 but whether your band one or band fall, so we really will be focusing our attention as to which band were in so there, that there in the mountains, if you follow them down, you'll get along the way to the bottom, which is where you've settled. Post listing pretrial. So if you get on to the next page Stage Post listing Pretrial 3250 is the princely sum for Band one band 4 6800 plus 40% of damages for £660 per extra defendant. So huge difference between the two. As you can see, the trial advocacy fee is, as we said, ring fenced. Andi. The bands are put together in 1234 big difference, with four being 1381 being 500. The footnote also says that a B C. D is a reference to the value within 10 to 25 so it's separated into a B C. D. As I say, you know, you're just like, Oh my goodness me. What are you talking about? Mrs Small Field. I can't even find the figures on the page. It look fixed. Recoverable costs towel around your head, preferably a damp one darkened room and just peer of the figures. It is snakes and ladders. You're going to get where you learned on Do you may be able to contract bit of extra money by saying there's an advocate or there's an advice, a swell. So but the key thing thing and the problem for me is that how do you make sure you're in Band Number four? And of course, there's no CMC in fast track. So the nice people in Soulful going to tell you that. So when you send in your directions questionnaire, you certainly want to address in that nice square box where they say any other information. A good bit of argument on this must be banned for because either wise there gently going to redistribute you on might suggest into a different band. So you're not gonna have an allocation hearing. You do need to make sure that you've got something in the Dean que on your landing. Now I don't think that it's all a bad scene, because at 8.6 in this document, the discussion around Part 36 including Broadhurst in town and can we get part 36 on an hourly rate. In addition to fix costs, you know that old chestnut part 36 in the fast track has bean Result on the resolution is to use an up lift off 35% apart, 36. So when you remember my little man running away with the money, I think this is really great idea. Like what we have this for all parts 26 cases Don't mess around with trying to say how percentages and we'll do you. Can we have the prescribed percentage of an extra 10% forget all of that? What are your damages claim and well done? Did you beat them? Hey, add on 35% Tremendous. What an incentive on how clear to use 35% is not up to 35%. It is 35% full stop. End of the story on that clarity in using called 36 is brilliant isn't so. That is definitely a silver lining to what you might feel. It's beginning to feel like a bit of a cloud. There is a section on unreasonable litigation conduct to get rid of the nutters on There is a section on counsel's fees as well, especially involving people who are in certain types of clinical negligence. What you do need a bit of extra help. There's also a few extra bits and pieces, which I'll leave you to have a look at. But the questions there we seek your views on those various elements on. But there are recommendations as well that, um, we follow this on, as I say, we're waiting for the response from this paper, but you can see the direction of travel. Okay, let's now have a look. Please, if we can. Back to our PowerPoint were on slide 14 at a new word that hasn't yet been used on. We don't use it, but it's going to be a brand new invention on its the fixed recoverable costs. In the intermediate track of the intermediate track is the cases that are in the county cord, not the high court. But I'm, um, multi track cases, so they're above 25,000 but currently the £100,000. So that's 25 to £100,000. Thatcher Intermediate track. They're not in the high court where we do have cost budgeting on costs, capping now this is really going to start to bite into the percentage of litigation that many of us would be involved in. And the idea here is to mirror what we've just done with fast track. But in the intermediate track that is reducing costs, encouraging, efficient, working on brilliantly, eliminating cost budgets. There's another silver lining there or assessing costs on an individual basis. So we're not gonna try and do that. What we're gonna do is give you a complicated grid. You can find your way through it, shake the dice and see where you land, and it's clear it's transparent. It's predictable, and that's because we can then encourage a discussion with your client on the discussion with your client is Look, friend Flossie. If you win even allowing for Parts 35 which is going to be crystallized as we've discussed into a percentage based recoveries, he could beat it, of course, equal beaten. You are going to have to you're going to get back the following amount of money, my costs on twice that. If you don't, we'll settle. Now you will have to find some money to pay the lawyers on finding somebody to pay the lawyers means an amount that is in excess off the recoverable costs. So why don't we just look at that settlement agreement again? That's the Bluhm rid. So no time recording needed on no precedent Age. So what are we looking at by the amended process? Will statements of cases it? You know this I love Madam. There's a show. I think it went to Edinburgh. Fringe is called the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and this is really clever. And they do so Hamlet in 15 minutes, you know, just it's quite amusing. I don't think this is going to be a music. Know that this is the reduced Shakespeare process for civil procedure. So what you're trying to do is redact, and in my experience, that takes time. It takes time to redact to the amended process. Statements of case no longer than 10 pages. Trials. A shortest possible disclosure in non P. I cases are just the ones you want. That's the good stuff. Don't ask me about the bad stuff. I'm not showing you the bad stuff for you know that that's gonna be a nightmare, isn't it? You know, you could get into correspondence on specific exposure applications because I don't have the same duty that we have under the new disclosure practice direction or under the old current disclosure in the Captain Court, it's quite different that witness statements to a total 30 pages and don't think you can reduce the font is you know, when there is double sided or not. Doesn't make any difference, does it to that? And that's a total per party, so, you know, speak quickly. Experts reports on all applications at 6 p.m. C. So and I agree with that, I like making applications in the same cell in the right place to make the application, if you possibly can. You can't be specific. Disclosure at the application seems because you have not disclosed yet, so there's a limit to what you can sort of concertina into an amended process. I'm not sure, although I can understand the thinking behind this because you've got limited costs. So there is a reduced process. It sounds simple, but I think in practice we're going to be spending time reductive on achieving the kind of simplicity and brevity that is required with these arbitrary limits to get through that process, but they're well, we'll see. So the intermediate track there's the calculator 25 to £100,000 measures to limit recoverable costs in Jr So if you're doing jr. Don't think you're out of this. Andi. He's got 30 to 40. If you remember in in fast track, it landed at 35. I suspect that it will come out as a fixed percentage on. That's really good, because if you have that fixed percentage, you at least can put some pressure on your glands to say or for heaven's sake, friend Flossie, on which it limited Come down if you're a claimant or come up if you're a defendant, make that early part 36 offer because if they cave in and accepted late, the rule is if you accept late, you d late, except tour pays the offer roll. So the except T, the offer really pays the offer rules, whoever their whichever signed it is. So if you're late, you're gonna pay their costs. So from the at the end of 21 days, so even as a defendant years after or don't make a part 36 with the defendants. No, if you're a defendant. Then you make on early Part 36 offer because if you equal beat it all, they hang around before they accept it. You're in a sweet spot, man s so it's But it isn't getting that uplift on you go. You can't get 35% extra costs at the moment. Is the defender underground 36? You know, it's it's pretty mean, really isn't. Even if you if you have got it right, you can get you split order for costs. But that's a riel improvement on a defendant's outcome under part 36. And I I think that's great, because it it's all aimed at proportionate litigation. Shall we try and have another look at the Great? Now there is a slide for grid, but you're very welcome to keep looking at that site. What I'm gonna do is take us back to that. Pdf, if you possibly can bear it, um, Andi, we'll see if we can look at not chapter that we're gonna go through the chapters now, folks, to the intermediate one. And it is always useful to read. But the chapters Chapter five on that begins on page 29 of that Pdf. But actually where I want to take you to is it does say what's in and what's out. I should say Andi, for example, the Ridges Shakespeare is at 2.1 on page 30. Andi. It puts another time limit, which is a three day trial. Three days goes ever so quickly. Tell you now, you know, even with written submissions, it goes very quickly. So there are some elements that are not within that you can't do some types of clinical negligence cases within that, OK, but he's gonna have this standard lending clin neg. Shall we have a look at and that you know, it's really interesting to read to see what you can achieve in terms of this reduce Shakespeare civil process. Let's have a look at the band's showing the four bands you'll find on Page 32. I think that this is not as clear as fast track band one. Simple Bantu Normal Ban. Three. Normal, bountiful, complex. Good. Well, I'm sure that's sorted that out. Then I hope that's clear. So the play here is not between Ban three and Bun fall, but between 12 and bun three. They really want you to be in bun two and three with four being. The exception on the reason for that is if we scroll down to the scores on the doors, which are much worse on page 33 0 there's your table of fixed, recoverable costs and you can see the difference. The differential between one and four is very significant. So my suggestion is, if you notice some things are not in shaded type. And there those ring fenced fees that are not, um, that you get extra. So you may be you land where you land on the Shane did. But you can go back to the unshaded and at the mom. Okay. Scroll down, folks. To the very end, on just to the total, which is on page 34 at the end of the grid, ABC is set out for you. There is up to 30. Remember? Were 25 to 100 a up to 30 be up to 50 c, up to 100. So they go look across, see? Which is top end. So you've got a claim between 50 and 100 k in the county court. You're getting in band 1 29,650 on your getting in band fall 68,459. That's a big difference for the same case. Now, of course, we have a CMC, so you're going to need to get your allocation tackle in order to say I am a band C band fall case on. Do you know that if you notice for 30,000 banned for its 53,000 which is almost twice as much so that you know, there is a recognition that it's exceptional, that it is too complicated? It may only be worth 30,000 but we need to double your costs. Toe 53,000. So it's really pushing band for us, the exceptional banding. I mean, there isn't that much difference between two and three, and that's deliberate. That's still IBRA. The plays between two and 34 is the exception. Okay, right, folks. Well, let's move on because we've been spending some time on those figures. But of course they're so important, aren't they way? We really do have to make sure that we have our heads into the new business model. They are the new business model, cost management the principal problem is incurred Cost. So he's is going to have a fiddle with cost management. These are president age we should have FL sees but incurred costs in Preston age. Shall I just say that again? If you walked into the room, you'd say What language and you speaking Mrs s wit for president? Age, Excel, spreadsheet incurred costs which the court shouldn't interfere with on are often abused to drive clawing back Molly What Jackson's going to has suggested and what the image is going to introduce is a banding tariff system for any incurred costs. Now, we are back in the high court because that's the only place we're gonna be doing cost budgeting. So the incurred costs has a tariff based system. So we can. So I've seen what we're gonna have to reduce to the assessment because the brilliant thing is, then we're talking about costs. Within 14 days, the FL sees give you a 14 day turnaround. So you know, that's great. You don't have any constipation. This is not the time to be from SC CEO Judge. So when this is not immediate, but when they've been it in, we're going to extend to the point that we can incurred costs the same sort of idea. Capt. Course is supposed to be leaner and agile in 10 51 w. I have, I was asked by the other side if I wanted to do cap cost to which I was claimant, I responded, No, I said, No, thank you. Um, the point of back cap costs, which always has worried me, is in the business, and property cases up above in the high court within with a top end of £250,000 is again. It involves a reduced Shakespeare company in terms of the civil procedure. So that's the other point with our carpet bomb erred. It's not so much the money. I can't be bothered to check. How many pages have we got totally In our witness statements, I can't be bothered to truncate an argument into a few pages. That's the thing that concerns me. Not that one wants to be, particularly for both, but, you know, it's It's not always just takes time to achieve. These are but treating limits. But the pilot that's running at 51 W. Hasn't had a huge take up. I must say, but it's, um capt not fixed, which means what goes up can come down. So the pilot scheme offers top end but not bottom end fixes on. In a way, you've kind of missed out on that. It capsule £80,000 with a part 35 at 25%. So going down a bit here, giving you a temple off £100,000 if you beat your part. 36. Whomever you are, claimant or defendant, the top end is £100,000 you can see the timeline, then 14th of Jan. 2019. So it's still going on. It includes a regime in AIPAC as well. They're CPR 51 W on. Do you can see that the size limitations statements in case will be limited? No cost management nor automatic disclosure. So again, you've got to get a menu there. Witness statements, experts evidence Onda Again. It's limited no more than two witnesses. One expert. Although it's eight months, you know, and it's only a two day trial. I mean, in the high court, that is no time. It'll that's no time at all. It's gotta be, you know, a slam dunk, high value debt, you know, which is annoying, but we still have to get through it. They always 800,000 will have to just get through it, but it should be fairly simple. It's a small proportion off types of cases in that jurisdiction. Well, we're looking at a lovely sunset there on Dad at the end of it. Are we thinking it's the end of hourly rates? You know, um, it's been with us for a long time, but we more arm or a za boss standards board entity. And people ask me whether they're late lines business, lance or sisters to quote and you know, it's a fixed fee approach that we use. Andi. I think people are much more adept at providing fixed fees. Of course, it's so difficult because things happen. But the C F A models may need to be reviewed. It could be that that's where you want a sort of picture. Put your basket in terms of CF Faisel, damages based agreements, or you can I think this is gonna move into solicitor client assessment under the 1974 act, where you could say, I want my bill with my solicitor to be taxed, please, cause I think that, you know, overcharging may, um, I think that's where it's going to move. I'm not sure that that's an easy place to be, because what it does is it put, This is what your recovery is. You're gonna have to have that discussion with your client. So the problem is that the weakness is that we just don't get access to justice in the same way it's been designed by lawyers for use by lawyers. It's a shocking state of affairs that left let against in persons at a grave disadvantage. So the problem that the court is the minister of justice or trying to think about here is there's no legal aid. We need people to get access to justice. Um, on day, one of the things that has come out of the discussion in terms of access to justice is this solution off the Online Solutions Court on a part of this is a whole debate about I t you Kenbrell read on the slide there, you know, I mean 90 has been ridiculous. One of things, I think, been in quite a big success. Stories see finding but is that in the high court that you can do that? I mean, if you work with someone like Central London County Court, it is like trying to get a rugby ball over the line to get things files in the cellar. It is absolutely. People have been tackling you in the opposite direction to prevent it, so I'm sure that's not the only court. So the solution of having this idea of great i t we could all have an account and, you know, get going on that perfect. But it's a little bit of, ah of, ah, high statement, not necessarily the reality. So the plan here was toe have an online court. It wouldn't necessarily happen in lawyers. It would have case officers who would sit as judges on the justice system really would revolve around a sort of big overhaul. With the civil justice improving for users with a coherent to comprehensive I t. Whereby people could, you know, deposed their claim on the online systems court on. Then they get a response, you know, almost like a digital jumps saying, Well, this is the fax. This is my case. What are you going to do? about it. But in practice, that means that you're moving advocacy into i t. And the response from the government promised support for people who had trouble using technology. But if you're gonna have an online says solution, you have to be able to be adept at using online. And of course, the people who aren't able to do that are the litigants in person who turned up in the small claims court and tell their story with aural advocacy, not with advocacy, that is linked to, um, written submissions. So telephone Web chat services will be a very We have seen any of that architecture at the moment. Extra support paper channels will also be maintained for those who need them. So these are all suggestions about how we support people with poor literacy or English skills. People who don't have a computer at home. Um, but it remains the fact that if you're going to move what is effectively a fast track limit on to an online platform, people have to have some I D skills on. They have to have consistent I t skills for the whole drenched him off the A case. So the pilot ended on 30th of November 2019 on that Waas, the county court Online Solutions pilot. As with other money claims online's, there is a particular part of it that is dedicated to that process. It's called the O. C. M. C. The online called Money Claims Website. So you know, we're all used to doing money claims online because, like percentage off the fixed fee for thin, the costs there to issue this is different. It's a different website with different forms. You can use a paper copy off. Put the address there of 21 to 27 North Hampton. So it's quite similar to the bulk issue center budget, their different forms and, you know, there no easy. I mean, it's ironic, really that the online process limited eyes limited. Sorry to just the initial part of the claim It. If you really want to go the distance, you're not going to get a digital dungeon not going to get a case officer. At the moment, you can just fall into the online bulk center system and be allocated to a district judge. So the point about this is that there are time limits. There are forms there is an opportunity to keep negotiating. The new feature is the defendant says, I've paid in full, but I'm willing to negotiate. Um, the can continue the negotiations through a series of forms, or they can indicate that they're not a virgin ghost yet, and they're gonna continue and there are time limits to do it. So, to be honest with you, I think it's really complicated toe follow through the possibilities on the settlement online there. If a settlement is reached within 28 days, then the claim can be dismissed, all discontinued. If the settlement breaks down, the parties can apply for judgment or the court can enforce the terms That settlement agreement on the claim is resumed. For the full hearing, you've got a variety of them, but you you can reach a road CEO and settlement agreement that, like a sort of compromise agreement or settlement agreement that you get in with a cast who give you an employment law, has standard template. We've got all this going on on, then that's what threads through the process. In that way, I look at that. Look at that slide, folks. New features Defendant subsection B subsection C subsection D. It's no easy I'm not gonna take you through it, But we haven't got time. We're about to run up to the end of our webinar but that my point is, if you're gonna have a truly online system which is accessible to people who aren't able to use a lawyer, I'm not sure this is the one at the moment in its current version because it's so complicated. I mean, we're used to civil procedure. We can't unknown what we know. I think coming in, you know, getting look is B or C or D or f. What, you choose that Can I not going to get that right? All they the defendants response I've set out on this line you can have a settlement agreement. You can request a judgment. You can have a replacement plan t grief. They need to come in and see you. And you can sit down together on work out how to use the Okan foams. Good luck with that. You could make applications for payment. If you're the claimant, you can have Okan 2940 come to for for our country for five, you choose the right form I don't know which form Winnie, do you? I'll sit down, away and look at it on. My client can then be informed how on earth is a litigant in person gonna get through this? But the point is that there is a sweeter forms. A suite of off processes that work in the online solution on the hearings are going to be virtual or video link. But case officers, not judges, in this being part of whom are about that because people think that that's a inroads into the system by using people who are not judges. Well, there has been political approval for this on the Lord Jesus, Justice told the Commons Justice Committee that take up for the online money claims project had been much greater than anyone had imagined. I think it's quite exciting from an access to justice perspective small, medium sized enterprises. The reality nowadays is if any of us were potentially in dispute of a few £100 refuse south compounds, we would think long and hard before launching pretty something seeming so complex, so very expensive, um, enabling people to do this online developing a very efficient system for dealing with these cases will encourage small businesses to vindicate their rights. Where is at the moment now shrugging their shoulders and moving on? Now you can hear my concern about the complexity of this system, but you know there's a will to do it. Thanks. So I think the point about this is that we're gonna unbundle, asked services. And Brinks has already responded to, um, bundling on. He said, Well, you couldn't. Lawyers will be able to buy Parsi automated interactive triage designed for litigants in person so they can get a sort of second system off, not just going through on their own, but going through with you so you can support that process on a similar provision might fund the cost of legal representation. Costs are very limited. There's no real plan to provide it, the sort of costs that we've been looking about in fast track. So you're in that Mets dean of I'm helping you, but only to a limited amount is probably gonna come out of the claimant or the defendant's own budget rather than be recoverable in the way that we've been talking about. So unbundle ing separating the giving of advice from the handling of litigation on the problem with them. Bundling is that it can blow up in your face because you are only cutting in at different times. So how far will all of this go? Well, you know, it's a starting point. If the I t. Is developed properly, that's have been then we could use the whole of it for civil and family, and we could revolutionize the world. Yeah, okay. A new court bringing together the existing part, of course. And tribal. I mean, this is very sort of top line stuff, really inter vision. It's a vision that's that's where we are. But the implications for us are that if you are giving them bundled services, you have to have a list of disclaimers and warnings. Limitation has to be warmed about, warned about, and not just limitation, that limitation, that the time limits that they are in the process. So you want me to drop its claim? I'm happy to do that, but I need to warn you that if you don't file it on time, because what walks through the door with drafting the POC is ancillary services that you expected me to say at the time, but I didn't say because I'm just drafting the POC. So unbundled services are going to billy a question of warning and scope, limited cost recovery. So you know, there are implications. That is a product there, I think. But we have to see So we're also looking at the C F T, which is the Civil Family and Tribunal program Digital services, to support the resolution of disputes. Yeah, I mean, digital negotiation, digital mediation. Yeah, great idea. Absolutely steps that a common the ambition is to unite common procedures in one digital platform. As I say these are reforms is a big picture tickets. This is ambition that we're looking at. There are other projects that are in hand at the moment, possession, enforcement and see filing. See, fine has been a big success story. Anything. Um, the not so good news is enforcement, which is streamlining the plan is to bring it back to the county called Have been a little bit concerned about this because most of us will enforce in the high court, even if it's those canticle matter. But the masters rosen it nature CTS project is just starting Onda part of that project is toe have paid enforcement officers who are in house on the possession claims as well. Need to speed up their or it's all units. Good stuff, isn't it? But they weren't unified enforcement on the problem is that it is expensive, and they want to reduce the price of that. But privatize services is so expensive, and that kind of put the court off it. So they're looking at in house ways whereby they keep the debt to be enforced by the courts services, but in a more streamlined way. So I will say Wilson, with the onus on the defendant with This is great. I love this because you could have an information hearing. You very rarely get them these stones, whereby they provide a standard set of means on explain what their methods are. So you know what? You've got to go. I got a house. You could get a chilled charging order. I've got shares or whatever. So transferring the owners onto the defendant and see if I you must have an account. You know you can't be in business with that look, and I love the shopping basket that you get a the end I've never really quite adjusted to the fact that I'm I'm buying, you know, is your house your basket? Look at your basket. How much do I owe you? I love that about see, filing sounds likes. It's just so eBay isn't Grant are, but obviously it's intended. That's going to be a rollout on Morsi filing. Coming soon to a county court, there's the practice Direction 2018. The practice in relation to filing applications on the C E file without a hearing is a huge waste of time for judges in dealing with them. People were regularly ignoring instructions no longer route around in the event law trying to find the relevant material. Non compliant applications will simply be rejected. And this is the way we use. See you. You can't just load up documents when you feel like it. What they want is is coherence in the filing. Well, that that's that kind of thing. So I put the scores on the doors in terms of the the Web links there for you to have a look at to see how that's going to work on as we finish our webinar. Now we should just remind ourselves about sort of looking at the possibilities in terms of preparing your practice. Um, I just want to suggest really two or three points now in our last minute. One of the points is people who want the cake. Anita, Andi, I think you know, we've all got plans like that who overstretched what you given to be done for the money. I think the other problem is and we've got a webinar on this at Dayton or settlement agreements need to be much more in evidence on ready to GOP, whether they're through the online court or through any other system. Andi, I think that the opportunities for new business models aren't quite significant because you may need to start thinking about a more bulk approach to those bottom end cases where you have fixed recoverable costs of the Wall Street ons. You might need a team that is slightly different from the one moment, and what we're seeing in overhead improvement are flexible working practices, people who come in from home and, you know they're left to it at home. They're given a certain number of cases to run on, and they're working remotely because, you know, that's that's how it works. Eso I think it has got some some sort of good, some great ideas there about what is possible. I think you have to be very good at Project Management. That's that's another slide there which we could talk about. You know, are you a lawyer or a project manager? And there's a role for project management and you're going tohave to bay as part of that very good at delegation as well, because you cannot afford to do everything yourself. So you know these air fantastic ideas, but we may have to revise the model in terms of what can be achieved. Well, thanks well done. This tremendous number of slides there to go through. Let's just remind ourselves of the highlights of our weapon up fixed costs in the vastra huge change, really, especially for clinical negligence. Small claims. Also those biggest giving up the online called We've Talked about, which is very, very form based, written intermediate cases, four bands. We've talked as well about the time scales on the way in which the four banks we're gonna work on. We talked about capital costs on do the changes to president age for incurred costs on. We had a look at some very tool on big picture implications for practice. I hope that's got you thinking. Thanks for being with me number.
Webinar
Slides
Quiz 
603 Users
9 Courses
14 Reviews
