Update on Collective Redress in England and Wales

Back in November of 2008, England and Wales asked Lord Justice Jackson to review civil litigation costs and how those costs affected access to justice.  He recently issued his final report (a hefty 584 pages).  BBC News calls the report a "radical plan[ ] to shake up costs of civil cases."  Here's an excerpt of the story:

Lord Justice Jackson's Review of Civil Litigation Costs is a result of a recognition that it is simply too expensive for many people and small companies to bring or defend civil cases.

"What I want to do is to focus the system so less money is paid to intermediaries and others in the process, and more money is paid to victims," he told the BBC.

"I am concerned about individuals, small businesses and others who need to use the courts."

His proposals are radical. He has looked at the factors forcing costs up in civil actions, and in particular he has focussed on Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs), more commonly known as "no win, no fee" agreements.

Despite BBC's headline, the final report was ultimately less radical than the preliminary one, which leaned toward abolishing England's cost-shifting "loser pays" rule.  The final report concludes that cost shifting should remain the norm (even in collective actions), but excepts personal injury claims from the norm.  Whether personal injury claims are brought individually or collectively, the final report recommends "qualified one-way costs shifting" where winning claimants could recover their costs from the defendant, but generally do not have to pay the defendant's costs if they lose.

Of additional import, the final report recommends that solicitors and barristers should be allowed to enter into contingency fee arrangements, which are currently prohibited.  Before entering into such an arrangement, the report recommends that claimants receive independent advice.  It also suggests capping the fees at 25%.

Finally, the report recommends making third-party funding available to personal injury claimants (including those involved in collective actions).  It defines third party funding as "The funding of litigation by a party who has no pre-existing interest in the litigation, usually on the basis that (i) the funder will be paid out of the proceeds of any amounts recovered as a consequence of the litigation, often as a percentage of the recovery sum; and (ii) the funder is not entitled to payment should the claim fail."  (Final Report at p. 17).  Very interesting.

For additional commentary on the report, here are links to Lovells, the UK's Financial Times, and BBC News.  Whether the suggested reforms will be implemented remains to be seen.

ECB