Court of Appeal confirms 10% damages uplift in civil litigation cases for next year
The Court of Appeal has handed down a judgment which will lead to a 10% increase in general damages in most civil litigation cases from 1 April next year. The changes, which form part of the measures recommended by Lord Justice Jackson in 2010, are intended to create a balanced package of measures in conjunction with the Government's Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
August 01, 2012 at 09:36 AM
2 minute read
The Court of Appeal has handed down a judgment which will lead to a 10% increase in general damages in most civil litigation cases from 1 April next year.
The changes, which form part of the measures recommended by Lord Justice Jackson in 2010, are intended to create a balanced package of measures in conjunction with the Government's Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
An integral part of the overall costs regime envisaged by Jackson is that general damages in most actions (where judgment is given after 1 April 2013) should rise by 10% – a clause which was not included because the Court of Appeal is deemed "the tribunal best qualified to set guidelines for judges trying such actions".
The Court of Appeal issues such guidelines to ensure consistency of approach in the assessment of damages, and case law provides for such guidance to set damages and to keep tariffs up to date.
The judgment in Simmons v Castle explains that early notice was being given of the 10% increase due to take effect in April 2013 to enable all parties engaged in or contemplating litigation to be aware of the impending change, and prepare accordingly.
It states: "This court has not merely the power, but a positive duty, to monitor and where appropriate to alter, the guideline rates for general damages."
Eversheds head of personal injury Brendan Padfield commented: "Damages have always been set by the courts. Since the creation of the Legal Aid bill, the intention has always been to tag on a 10% increase in damages."
He added: "This development is therefore marks the judiciary delivering on its part of the bargain to create a coherent package of reform. Giving all parties nine months' notice of a hike in damages creates a level playing field to ensure both claimants and defendants to get their house in order beforehand."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Jones Day Expands European Footprint with Global Disputes Partner in Madrid
ENRC and SFO Reach Shock Settlement Over Media Leaks Allegations
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250