Litigators call for renewed push on BCCI reforms as Aikens proposals fail to gather support
Reforms drawn up in the wake of the £100m BCCI court battle are being ignored according to senior lawyers who warn momentum is draining from attempts to rein in High Court costs.
Lawyers speaking at the Legal Week Litigation Forum earlier this month warned the current trial of post-BCCI recommendations, designed to streamline complex litigation, are failing to win backing or even substantive feedback.
The BCCI working party chaired by Mr Justice Richard Aikens has already extended the trial period by four months until November. The trial is designed to give judges and court users a chance to ‘road-test’ the recommendations in the hope of gathering more feedback.
The group’s recommendations, which were published in December 2007, include drawing up a list of initial issues, limiting opening and closing speeches and reducing the length of witness statements.
However, senior lawyers are warning that the reforms are failing to win support on the ground, with some judges and litigators criticising the package as unworkable and for frontloading costs.
Ali Malek QC (pictured left), chair of the Commercial Bar Association, said the working party’s recommendations were welcome but commented: “It is important that people understand the philosophy behind the rules, which are just guidance”.
Clifford Chance partner Simon Davis (pictured right), a member of the eight-strong Aikens group, commented: “The philosophy behind the proposals has been welcomed but some of the precise methods of achieving this have been questioned. But, most importantly, if anyone is unhappy with the proposals they must give feedback.”
Law Society chief executive Des Hudson said: “There seems to be a wide range of views but limited understanding of what the [trial period] is trying to achieve. There does not seem to be a high level of participation or awareness and we need to address that.”
Faltering attempts to improve the
The collapse of the BCCI creditors’ 10-year legal battle with the Bank of England in November 2005 stoked controversy for its £100m legal costs and the inability of the
