ABSTRACT
The task of Lord Woolf and his Committee was the complete overhaul of the civil justice system. Their ‘overriding objective’ in formulating the new Civil Procedure Rules 1998 – the cornerstone of the reforms – was to deal with cases justly, that is, with both parties, as far as possible, on an equal footing. The aims were: • to save expense; • proportionality (the amount involved in the dispute, its
importance to the parties, the complexity of the issues and the financial position of the parties);
• to deal with cases expeditiously and fairly; • to allocate an appropriate share of the court’s resources. In relation to costs, the court has a discretion to decide whether costs are payable by one party to another, the amount and when they should be paid. The general rule is that the loser will have to pay the winner’s costs. However, in exercising discretion, the court will look at circumstances such as the conduct of the parties – including efforts to resolve the dispute; whether the loser was partially successful; and whether there was an offer to settle or a payment into court. In deciding the amount to be paid, factors to be taken into account include: whether the costs were reasonably incurred; any efforts to resolve the dispute; the value of any money or property claimed; and the importance of the matter to the parties. Thus, pressure is put on solicitors on both sides to attempt to resolve the dispute as quickly and economically as possible. This clear move towards alternative dispute resolution furthers clients’ interests more than pursuing a strictly adversarial course, or using the rules for tactical gains, as was formerly the case.
