New issue of Costs Lawyer now available
The latest issue of Costs Lawyer is now available – members can access it here.
It covers a wide range of topics, from budget revision and part 36, to deductions from damages, medical agency fees and default costs certificates.
Also, Professor Dominic Regan looks ahead to where the CPR may be changing and Claire Green reflects on a busy few months for the Association.
Your time to serve? New Council member sought
Members should have received an email seeking nominations to fill the seat on the ACL Council vacated by Natalie Swales. The closing date for nominations is noon on Thursday 12 August. Email email@example.com.
Government eyes push for more non-court dispute resolution
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) issued a major call for evidence this week seeking views on the best ways to settle family, business and other civil disputes away from the courts.
Ministers are considering whether new technologies, as well as services such as mediation and conciliation, “could provide smarter and less adversarial routes for finding resolutions”.
Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland said: “We want the public, families and businesses to be able to resolve disputes easily and with as little stress as possible – avoiding often lengthy and costly court battles.”
Justice minister Lord Wolfson added: “With nearly 30 years of experience as a commercial lawyer, I know the benefits of finding amicable agreements early to help parties move on constructively.
“Too often, the courts aren’t the best means for reaching such outcomes. That is why we want to improve the range of options available to people to resolve their issues, ensuring less adversarial routes are considered the norm rather than the alternative.”
The MoJ said litigation would “always remain as an option open to everyone” and recognised that some cases would inevitably require people to go to court.
“But the government wants people to have a greater range of options to settle disagreements proactively and constructively – via routes most appropriate for their particular case.”
The call for evidence is also backed by the senior judiciary.