Chair election reminder
Members received an email last week calling for nominations to replace Sue Nash as chair of the ACL at the AGM on 14 May 2016. Council has decided that that an election will take place over the next month so that the person elected can join and work with Ms Nash and the Council in the time leading up to the AGM.
Ms Nash wrote: “It is my personal hope that more than one person will stand so that we have a ‘full’ election process enabling members to make an informed decision about who will lead the Association over what is likely to be an ongoing period of change for the legal profession as a whole and for our members and profession in particular.
“It is a busy and demanding role but also a fulfilling one and we now have in place a paid executive to assist the chair and Council in carrying out their roles and in supporting the primary objectives of the Association – to promote and protect the interests of Costs Lawyers.”
Potential candidates should contact Diane Pattenden (firstname.lastname@example.org) in the first instance for copies of the ACL Council Member Role Specification and Roles and Responsibilities for ACL Council and Executive. To apply, a candidate will be required to submit a CV of no more than three pages and a supporting statement of no more than 1,000 words, to arrive by 5pm on 6 November.
Insolvency practitioners hit back at Jackson
R3, the trade body for insolvency practitioners, has rejected the arguments put forward last week by Lord Justice Jackson for ending the exemption insolvency litigation currently enjoys from his reforms. R3 led the successful campaign earlier this year to persuade the government to extend the exemption beyond its planned end-date of 1 April 2015.
In response to Jackson LJ’s argument that recoverability was aimed at personal injury and so produced a “windfall” for the insolvency profession, R3 responded that it has been creditors, rather than practitioners, who have benefited. The judge had also argued that recoverability is an “instrument of oppression” which is liable to “crush” defendants who may have a good defence, but R3 argued that “advantage in insolvency litigation is mutually exclusive: either creditors have an advantage, or rogue directors do”.
As to Jackson LJ’s contention that recoverability drives up the overall costs of litigation, R3 said that in fact it drove up recoveries for creditors, while it also insisted that “alternatives to the current regime do not bring the same returns to creditors”, despite the judge’s view that it was perfectly possible to bring insolvency litigation without the benefit of recoverability.