Welcome to a round-up of legal costs news from the week.
Clinical negligence fixed costs were considered this week with the government proposing a delay to the consultation process until next year. The issue is reviewed by Litigation Futures here with an interesting article by Catherine Dixon, Law Society Chief Executive on the risks of a fixed costs regime for clinical negligence case here
and discusses an unreported case Dilip v Paynes Dairies Ltd, case number A53YJ800, 2015, Leicester County Court, where two small claims were issued together with a third claim to make a single big claim to which fast-track costs consequences were applied. Find out more here.
Amendments to Practice Direction 47 (specifically paragraph 5.8) to allow application of the appropriate proportionality test for costs pre- and post-1 April 2013 to bills submitted for assessment are set to come into force in January 2016, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has agreed. The amendments formalise the decision in BP v Cardiff & Vale University Local Health Board  EWHC B13 (Costs) and are discussed here
Most of the legal aid news centres on the challenges to the government proposals for criminal legal aid however amidst all the news items and legal challenges we found a small but significant article reporting on applications for legal aid exceptional funding granted to under -18s since April 2013. In a written answer, Lord Faulks confirmed that just 8 out of the 79 applications made were granted. Exceptional funding exists to provide funding where it is legally needed and where an application falls outside of the current scope for legal aid.