好色先生TV

They are calling it 鈥淭he New Landscape鈥�. Well, now, you can get new landscapes all sorts of ways. At worst, by an earthquake. On 26 April, the courts in England and Wales dumped the Rules of the Supreme Court and invented a completely new set called the Civil Procedure Rules. About 125 years of procedures and changed procedures and amended procedures plopped into a rubbish bin somewhere in the back yard at the High Court. The damn rules had become so well developed and argued-over that, far from becoming clearer and clearer, they had become so bloody clever as to fog everyone. They had reached the ultimate level of their own inefficiency. So, we have started all over again. Fresh field, new landscape 鈥� everyone is fogged.

At this point, I am very tempted to change my mind about what I want to talk about. There is an overwhelming urge to suggest we get that tatty old rubbish bin into one or two other backyards and dump all the other forms of building contract. We could easily ask whether 125 years of forms and more forms and more forms, having been amended, then changed, then amended, should be dumped.

Save it for another time. The reason is that the folk making the new landscape with the new Civil Procedure Rules are thinking about changing one of the new rules. It is called progress, which is where we were 125 years ago. The only difference this time is that those who do all this amending and altering must nowadays consult you. It鈥檚 not because they actually want your input. No, they invite comment knowing you won鈥檛 bother. So take them by surprise. Have a go. The reason is that what goes on in the courts is all about your business, your livelihood and your pocket.

One of the new ideas already in train is called 鈥渇ast track鈥�. This is for non-complex cases involving claims valued between 拢5000 and 拢15 000. There is a strict timetable of 30 weeks leading to a one-day trial. So far, so good. The shift comes with recovering your legal costs. It鈥檚 good news for losers and not so good for winners. What worries me is that I reckon that the latest ideas, if introduced, will favour the bloke with a bad case.

Let me explain. The ordinary rule is that 鈥渃osts follow the event鈥�. In simple cases, the event is easy to identify; it means the loser pays the winner鈥檚 legal costs. That is not so in fast-track one-day trials. The amount recovered for the trial itself is now capped. It is 拢350 or 拢500 or 拢750 if the award is 拢3000, 拢3000-拢10 000 or more than 拢10 000 respectively. This applies regardless of the actual length of the trial within the one day.

What worries me is that I reckon that the latest ideas, if introduced, will favour the bloke with a bad case

Glibly, the Lord Chancellor鈥檚 department says 鈥渋t should be possible for lawyers to work within the fixed costs allowed鈥�. Of course that is right. It is quite possible to dash into court from a number 42 bus and shout from the court doors: 鈥淲hat a load of rubbish 鈥� don鈥檛 believe a word of the other fellah鈥檚 story!鈥� then dash back on to the bus. These fixed costs are nothing more than a guess. The idea is half-baked. It will mean that the lawyer for the winner will charge his time to his client, but his client will only recover to the capped limits from the losing party.

But now the Lord Chancellor is thinking of going a step further. He is asking whether it is a good idea not just to have fixed recovery of trial costs but fixed recovery for the 30-week preparation, too. It鈥檚 another great idea for losers. Do you want this? If the preparation and the trial recovery costs are capped by way of recovery from the loser, is that OK? If you win your case and can鈥檛 recover all your solicitor鈥檚 reasonable costs, are you happy? Would it be a bright idea to limit what you pay to your solicitor to what is recovered from the loser? Yes, that鈥檚 smart.

Except, of course, that solicitors up and down the land will do with fast-track cases what many do with legal aid cases. They will say 鈥渘o thanks鈥�. And since construction cases and all those contract documents and all the building law cases have seen the development of highly specialised law firms, you would be a damn fool not to use those lawyers.