The Rise and Rise of Fixed Costs in Litigation

12 Oct 2021

Covid 19 has brought a number of changes to litigation, including more remote hearings and the sharing of virtual court documents. We will see the extent to which these changes become permanent and what affect the pandemic will have on the litigation landscape, with an anticipated rise in insurance and employment claims and the potential for an insolvency claims tsunami.

There are also changes on the horizon relating to the way litigation claims are run, with a fixed cost regime to be introduced for claims worth less than £100,000. Simon Elcock, Head of Dispute Resolution at DMH Stallard, explains the  growing significance of fixed costs.  

Rationale for change
Litigation can be expensive and unpredictable and this puts off many claimants from taking formal legal action. The government’s intention is to make the law more accessible and encourage early settlement where appropriate, so reducing costs and injecting more certainty into the process. Early settlement, whilst attractive in principle, is not always the 'right' or 'fair' outcome and there is an argument that a fixed recoverable cost regime may penalise both claimants and defendants, by dissuading the former from bringing claims and encouraging the latter to settle irrespective of the merits of the claim. 

The current situation
When a dispute goes to court, the 'losing party' can usually expect to be ordered to pay the majority of the 'winning party’s' legal costs in addition to its own. These potential costs can act as a disincentive to bringing claims and particularly in lower value, 'Fast Track Claims' (currently claims with values between £10,000 and £25,000) - where each party’s costs to trial can easily exceed the sum in dispute, and where the 'losing party' may well face a significant costs liability compared to the value of the claim. Costs can become the dominant and determining factor in this kind of litigation.

Fast Track for cases under £100,000 
The government has recently announced its intention to introduce fixed recoverable costs (FRC) for cases valued at under £100,000. This will determine the level of costs that a successful party can recover from its opponent, thereby giving a measure of costs certainty from the outset. Lord Wolfson of Tredegar QC, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, explained the rationale behind these changes: 

"Without being able to predict what the costs may be, it is difficult for either side to take an informed decision on the appropriate way forward. If cases are to be litigated, then we want them to be resolved as early as possible, with costs as proportionate and as fair to both sides as possible." 

New regime can include an uplift on costs of up to 50%
The proposed new regime will include uplifts of 35% on the FRC where a party has rejected a Part 36 settlement offer (a prescribed type of offer under the relevant rules on civil procedure), which they fail to 'beat' at trial, and a 50% uplift where a court deems that a party has acted unreasonably (the courts will determine what is 'unreasonable' conduct). 

The FRC regime will not be 'one size fits all'. Cases will be allocated to one of four bands depending on complexity. Whilst parties will be entitled to challenge the allocation, it appears that an unsuccessful challenge could itself amount to 'unreasonable conduct' risking a 50% uplift on the FRC.
Parties to be incentivised to make realistic and early settlement offers
The level of FRC will also increase as a matter progresses towards trial and some adjustments will apply for London weighting and for cases involving more than one defendant. The government’s intention appears to be to encourage early settlement, to make lower value litigation more predictable and to free up the courts. 

Certainty on recoverable costs
Whilst it is clear that the new FRC regime will provide some certainty for litigants, it will only extend to recoverable costs - ie. the costs that a successful party is entitled to recover from its 'opponent'. The regime does not limit the costs that a party will incur with its legal advisors in pursuing or defending litigation, although early settlement will naturally serve to limit costs. Neither does the regime differentiate between the parties or take account of the fact that the claimant will usually incur higher costs due to the enhanced weight of its obligations throughout the proceedings.

The conclusion
We do not know when the FRC regime will be implemented nor if it will be applied retrospectively. At this stage, it is not clear that these changes will have the apparently desired effect of increasing access to justice for those with less deep pockets. If you are considering pursuing a claim which may fall within the FRC regime in due course, you may well want to consider committing to that without awaiting their implementation. When the new regime comes into force, you will undoubtedly be best served by working with an experienced litigation team that is flexible in its approach and able to make the most appropriate commercial recommendations. At DMH Stallard, we assess every claim on its merits and always provide objective legal and commercial advice.

Further reading

Ganz v Petronz FZE & Goren – key decisions of the arbitration claim

Blog, Legal Updates
The recent Judgment in the arbitration claim Mordchai Ganz v (1) Petronz FZE (2) Abraham Goren [2024] EWHC 635 has already received attention from legal pundits.  The DMH Stallard’s legal team (Tim Ashdown, Beatrice Bass and Patrick Murray) acted for the Claimant. DMH Stallard was supported by the legal team of Altshuler Law in Israel which is a collaboration enabled through their membership of LEInternational.
Read more Read

Reversal of changes to High Net Worth Individual and Self-certified Sophisticated Investor criteria implemented

Blog, Legal Updates
As discussed in our recent update, the government announced in the Budget that the eligibility criteria for the exemptions, which allow shares and other financial instruments to be marketed to High Net Worth Individuals and Self-certified Sophisticated Investors without the regulatory protections
Read more Read

FCA to investigate personal guarantees in small business lending following a super complaint

The FSB has raised concerns that the demand for personal guarantees by lenders has a detrimental impact on small businesses accessing borrowing to grow
Read more Read

ECCTA: Fundamental changes for companies and considerations for lenders: Practical points to note

Tyne Harman outlines some of the key considerations for lenders and borrowers alike to be aware of.
Read more Read
  • Brighton - Jubilee St

    1 Jubilee Street


    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Brighton - Old Steine

    47 Old Steine


    East Sussex

    BN1 1NW

  • Gatwick

    Griffin House

    135 High Street


    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road



    GU3 1LR

  • Hassocks

    32 Keymer Road


    West Sussex

    BN6 8AL

  • Horsham

    3rd Floor

    Afon Building

    Worthing Road


    West Sussex

    RH12 1TL

  • London

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane


    EC4A 3BF

  • Make an enquiry

    Make an enquiry


    Or head to our Contact us page