Chair of Litigation Committee
Gavin Foggo, Fox Williams LLP
City of London Law Society Litigation Committee response to Extending Fixed Recoverable Costs in Civil Cases: Implementing Sir Rupert Jackson's proposals
Letter written on behalf of the Litigation Committee of the City of London Law Society in response to the Ministry of Justice's Post-Implementation Review of Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, urging HM Government to reconsider its policy of prohibiting solicitors from entering into hybrid DBAs in relation to commercial disputes, whether in the English courts or in an arbitration with its seat in England and Wales.
23/01/2017 - Litigation Committee submission regarding the possible extension of fixed recoverable costs
Litigation Committee submission to Lord Justice Jackson regarding the possible extension of fixed recoverable costs
CLLS response to Appeals to the Court of Appeal proposed amendments to CPR and PD
29/02/2016 - Litigation Committee response to Lord Justice Briggs' Civil Courts Structure Review: Interim Report
Litigation Committee response to Lord Justice Briggs' Civil Courts Structure Review: Interim Report
10/03/2014 - Response to the Civil Justice Council’s call for written submissions on the impact of the Jackson reforms on costs and case management
The submission’s Introduction noted: “The Committee is highly concerned about the impact of [the reforms in civil procedure introduced in April 2013 (“the Reforms”)] on the conduct of commercial litigation in England and Wales. In particular, the Committee considers that the Reforms have increased the cost of litigation, that the Reforms have not improved the efficiency of litigation or the proportionality of litigation costs, that the Reforms have engendered an unduly formalistic approach to compliance, and that there remain major ambiguities in the interpretation and application of the Reforms. Indeed, the Committee is concerned that the Reforms may have an adverse effect on the international perception of litigation in England.”
30/01/2014 - Response to the Ministry of Justice’s Consultation Paper: Court Fees: Proposals for Reform
The Committee’s response raised a number of concerns with the proposals contained in the Consultation Paper, and in its general comments stated that “The Committee does not accept that the Consultation Paper makes out any case for increasing court fees in civil litigation”.
18/12/2013 - Response to the Civil Justice Council's Costs Committee's Call for Evidence regarding solicitors' guideline hourly rates
The Civil Justice Council's Costs Committee (the "CJC") call for evidence sought to assist the CJC in making "evidence-based recommendations" on new guideline hourly rates for solicitors' firms. In parallel with the call for evidence, the CJC had conducted a survey of solicitors' firms, to gather evidence in order to enable the CJC to set guideline rates. The Litigation Committee responded in detail to the call for evidence and noted generally that "the CJC's survey reflects a flawed approach to establishing solicitors' reasonable charges and, further, that if this approach is carried through, it may reduce the international attractiveness of litigation in England and Wales."
04/11/2013 - Response to Ministry of Justice consultation on Costs protection in defamation and privacy claims: the Government’s proposals
The consultation paper proposed a scheme that would allow a court to exclude or limit the normal costs liability of an unsuccessful party to publication proceedings because that party would suffer severe financial hardship if it were ordered to pay the successful party's costs. The response was critical of the fact that the consultation paper did not set out any criteria as to how the court should assess severe financial hardship. The response concluded that “the Consultation Paper should be withdrawn and a new paper issued that sets out the options for determining severe financial hardship and assesses how they might operate in practice. Without that, any consideration of the questions in the Consultation Paper will be incomplete at best, and probably flawed.”
The Provisional Report, which made over 100 detailed recommendations, formed part of an in-depth review of the practice and procedure of the Chancery Division, and followed an intensive process of consultation and analysis between the review team and the whole of the chancery community. The Committee commented on several of the issues raised in the Provisional Report.
30/10/2013 - Response to the Ministry of Justice consultation paper Judicial Review: Proposals for further reform
The consultation invited views on potential measures for the further reform of judicial review, and followed on from the Government’s earlier judicial review consultation, which closed in January 2013. The Committee’s response was concerned solely with judicial review in a commercial context. In overview, the Committee stated that it was not convinced by the arguments in the Consultation Paper that the system of judicial review is in need of reform in the manner proposed in the Consultation Paper.
29/07/2013 - Response to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee's consultation on costs budgeting and costs management
Response to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee's consultation on costs budgeting and costs management
Response to MoJ consultation "Appointments and Diversity: 'A Judiciary for the 21st Century'"
Response to the MoJ consultation paper on fees in the High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division
Response to MoJ Consultation on draft European Asset Preservation Order Regulation (Litigation Committee Response)
Response to the Ministry of Justice consultation on solving disputes in the County Courts (CP6 2011)
Response to Ministry of Justice Consultation on the Draft Defamation Bill
Response to European Commission Consultation paper "Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress"
Response to the Lord Chief Justice's consultation on the use of live, text-based communications from court
Financial Law Committee Response to MoJ Consultation "Revision of the Brussels 1 Regulation - How should the UK approach the negotiations?" See also the Litigation Committee response below.
Response to MoJ Nov 2010 Consultation "Proposals for Reform of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales"
Litigation Committee response to MoJ Consultation "Revision of the Brussels 1 Regulation - How should the UK approach the negotiations?" See also the Financial Law Committee response above.
Response to Joint Advocacy Group consultation document on Proposals for a Quality Assurance Scheme for Criminal Advocates
Response to the Civil Justice Council Consultation on a Self Regulatory Code for Third Party Funding
Response to Bar Council Consultation on Contractual Terms of Work
Response to the Ministry of Justice Consultation Paper CP53/09 regarding the Civil Law Reform Bill
Submission to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on the Financial Services Bill 2009-10
Response to Lord Justice Jackson's Preliminary Report on Civil Litigation Costs dated 8 May 2009
Response to CP4/09 Controlling Costs in Defamation Proceedings
Response to the SRA's Consultation on Proposals for Mandatory Re-Accreditation
Response to Law Society Consultation on Litigation Funding: Key Issues and Background
Response to Civil Procedure Rules Consultation on Costs Capping Orders
Response to SRA's consultation on standards for Solicitor Higher Courts Advocates and outline proposals for a new accreditation scheme
Response to the Civil Justice Council Consultation on a General Pre-Action Protocol and Practice Direction in Pre-Action Protocols
Response to consultation "The Governance of Britain - Judicial Appointments"
Comments on Solicitors' Code of Conduct: Rule11 - Litigation and Advocacy
Response to Consultation on Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Service of Documents