Reporting to the Head of Operations, the successful candidate will be required to understand the business needs of a new paperless environment, identify risks associated with the transition, introduce resources required, design new processes and finally introduce fully paperless systems successfully.

Utilising the existing case management functionality, a project manager is required to complete the following tasks:

• Identify and document current systems in place
• Consult with key management to agree and establish paperless goals and implementation timetable
• Consult with all departments affected by the move to paperless systems and understand their key needs in a new paperless environment
• Document the core requirements of our new paperless systems
• Design and document new paperless systems that account for company requirements
• Source and manage the introduction of any new resources required to execute the paperless transition
• Consider audit requirements for new paperless system

It is envisaged that the project will last three months and the contract will be fixed for this term.

The ideal candidate will have previous experience of successfully introducing internal systems and processes or previous project management experience. Candidates will be required to demonstrate an organised and structured approach to work and will need a strong natural determination to ensure that this project is introduced in a timely and structured way.

Applicants will need to demonstrate an ability to work in a professional and organised way. Experience in building management & health and safety is desired but not essential.

The role is envisaged to require around 15 hours a week and would suit part-time hours or job share.

Duties will include…

Building Security and Maintenance

• Responsible for maintaining security and managing maintenance
• Key contact point for tenants, co-tenants, contractors, building agents and landlords of all occupied buildings
• Responsible for handling and resolving problems for tenants of all Jaggards buildings (currently mixture of residential and commercial)
• Responsible for handling queries and resolving problems to do with the building
• Responsible for issuing keys and maintaining accurate key inventory
• Maintain building alarm contract, arrange regular services and train personnel as & when required
• Responsible for configuring and issuing alarm fobs, and maintaining an accurate inventory
• Ø  Issuing external access cards and monitoring
• Ø  Creating policies and procedures to uphold building security and safety
• Ensure all building equipment is serviced when appropriate
• Ensuring we are compliant with all building regulations i.e. electrical certificates up to date etc.
• Maintaining proper insurance for buildings
• Improving awareness of security issues amongst employees
• Line manager for maintenance office worker and cleaner
• Organising and monitoring building works and renovation
• Dealing with service contracts e.g. recycling bins
• Ordering equipment and ensuring we have appropriate storage

Fire Safety

• Acting as head of fire safety and the liaison point for emergency services
• Maintaining current systems to comply with Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2000
• Updating policies, procedures and forms
• Updating log book
• Performing daily fire safety maintenance checks
• Updating PAT schedule
• Ensuring PAT testing is carried out and records are kept
• Performing fire safety risk assessment annually
• Implementing controls to reduce risk
• Ensuring awareness of fire safety procedures throughout the company
• Ensuring all fire safety equipment is serviced
• Ensuring fire wardens are kept up to date with any changes to fire safety
• Liaise with HR regarding any fire warding training requirements

Please send your CV and a covering letter explaining your interest in the role FAO Claire Rowlett.

Teammates included:

Mark Hallam

Marc Haslam

Adrian Jaggard

Matt Hoe

Paul Halifax

Nick Barks

Well done particularly to the two Marks who managed to ensure our third victory in the event, we managed to fend off Taylor Rose Law whom followed us overall in second place.

Quote from Adrian Jaggard…

‘We are very pleased with the completion of the deal to relocate to Northminister House, we are currently undertaking an extensive refurbishment programme and anticipate moving into our new offices in the first week of September. Whilst we continue to focus on servicing national consumers of legal services, we intend to use the increased profile of Northminster House to establish our local reputation and develop our services in this respect.’

The event was well attended by key industry figures.  Adrian Jaggard, Managing Director of Jaggards and Partner in Taylor Rose Law opened the day and welcomed the guests, moving swiftly on to the first keynote speaker, Lord Justice Jackson.  Sir Rupert ran through his work to date and gave some insight into his vision and the proposals for the way forward.

After breakfast, the focus of the day was on the law of costs with four speakers on that area:  Robert Carter, Senior Partner of Taylor Rose Law, Roger Mallalieu of Four New Square, Master Haworth, Costs Judge of the SCCO, and Matthew Hoe, Legal Director of Jaggards. The topics covered the impact of the Jackson reforms on practitioners and the courts, the recent legal developments in the field of costs, and the likely key issues if the reforms are completed.

In the run up to lunch, Stephen Hines, partner in Taylor Rose Law, updated the delegates on the impact of the MOJ RTA Process, and David Cooper, fellow partner in Taylor Rose Law, gave some insight into the claimant perspective.  Rocco Pirozollo, chair of the ABI ATE and BTE Committee laid out the stark realities of the expectations regarding the way that the BTE market may react to the reforms.

The afternoon session took a political turn with addresses from the President of FOIL, David Southwell of Zurich Insurance and Adrian Jaggard, with the afternoon culminating in the address from the Justice Minister on the government’s approach to reform.  Warm reception and positive feedback from all delegates has been gratefully received and cements the position of the conference as an important event in the industry calendar. We would like to extend special thanks to all of the guest speakers whose time and contribution is gratefully received.

More than 300 guests attended, including business and civic leaders, enjoying a champagne reception before dinner and the awards presentation at the Exec Centre at the East of England Showground in Peterborough.

FORMER champion athlete Roger Black inspired and entertained guests with his passion for the Olympics to set the scene as host for this year’s event.

“It is the result of the combination of a lot of effort from a lot of people. I am so proud of everyone, of everyone’s contribution,” said Adrian.

“I am also very pleased that we did get around to entering The Evening Telegraph Business of the Year Awards 2010.”

The report is following many of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson, particularly seeking responses in relation to proposals for the reform of conditional fee agreements and ATE premiums along with an increase in general damages and responses in relation to Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals on Part 36 offers, one way costs shifting, supplementary legal aid, alternative recommendations and recoverability, proportionality, damages based agreements and litigants in person.

The proposals made by Lord Justice Jackson are broadly accepted, the consultation also acknowledges the recent report prepared by Lord Young and again adopts some of his proposals in addition.

In the ministerial forward it is stated that “we are seeking to strike the right balance between access to justice for those who need it with ensuring that costs are proportionate and that unnecessary and frivolous claims are deterred.”  It is clear that the Ministry of Justice are seeking to address the disproportionate inflation in legal costs over the last ten years largely resulting from the main stream adoption of conditional fee agreements.

We hope to be working with many of our clients in preparing their responses to the consultation and invite any enquiries in relation to this from all to be addressed to Adrian Jaggard of our offices.

Law degree/experience of working in the insurance industry is preferable but not essential. Training will be provided in-house.

The successful candidate will be:

• Confident on the telephone;
• Proficient at letter writing;
• Motivated;
• Well organised;
• Able to work to deadlines;
• Able to work well under pressure;
• Capable of learning and applying new skills.

Please send your CV and a covering letter explaining your interest in the role FAO Claire Rowlett.

The role would include dealing with administration tasks, including filing, outgoing post, and data entry, particularly in opening new case files. The role involves at desk work, particularly with computers, and away from desk work.

The successful candidate will be:

• Motivated;
• Well organised;
• Able to work well under pressure;
• Work well in a team;
• Computer literate;
• Capable of learning and applying new skills.

Please send your CV and a covering letter explaining your interest in the role FAO Claire Rowlett.

Pre-action Disclosure Applications

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But it is not something that parties or the courts are entitled to use on an assessment of costs. However, hindsight can most definitely inform the way in which we act in the future.

In our experience, Pre-action Disclosure Applications are an area of litigation that is often overlooked, but we consider that there is much scope for not only avoiding them in the first instance but, if unavoidable (or not avoided), reducing the amount they cost the insurance industry.

Avoid them

These applications are seen by many claimant firms as a serious revenue stream but they are very often fully avoidable.

An application will frequently be made at the first available opportunity, much in the same way that substantive proceedings will be issued at the first available opportunity in a motor case that would, but for the issue of proceedings, be captured by the fixed recoverable costs regime in CPR 45 Section II.

Consequently, defendants should be proactive in providing the information and/or documentation requested. Many firms have adopted the practice of including requests for information and documentation in their standard letters of claim (the PIPAP template letter is the same) but because the letters are pro-forma, the request is often overlooked/not addressed or not taken seriously.

If there is a difficulty in providing the information, or if difficulty is anticipated, then a request should be made as soon as possible for an extension of the time for providing the information. That will stand a defendant in good stead when it comes to the costs of the application in the event one is made.

If not avoidable/avoided

If the application is not defended (some are – e.g. premature issue) then it will, most likely, settle by consent prior to any hearing. The costs of these applications are usually met during the claim and not, for example, left over to the end of the claim. If they cannot be agreed, then they will be summarily assessed by a district judge, usually at a telephone hearing.

The costs of such applications are, except on the rarest of occasions, agreed by the insurance company file handler. Because ‘Costs’ has been outsourced for so many years, file handlers have simply not had to deal costs assessments and, with appropriate respect to them, the approach which seems to be adopted to assessing those costs involves little more than reducing the sum claimed by a certain percentage and seeing if the claimant’s solicitors accept.

So, in order to assist those reading this article who do have to deal with these applications, we thought it would be useful to set out the things that you should look for when presented with a claim for costs of an application for Pre-action Disclosure:

• Was the application issued reasonably? Were you given notice of the intention to issue the application? If not, then you should not have to pay for the costs of it. If you were given notice, was the application issued after the expiry of any deadline you were given? If no deadline was given, did they wait a reasonable amount of time (usually 14-21 days’ notice would be appropriate, depending on the particular facts of the case);
• Proportionality: this is an indistinct concept of the CPR because it is not defined. However, it is a constituent part of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules and, therefore, as relevant to the costs of an application for Pre-action Disclosure as anything else. If the costs of the application are disproportionate, then they should be assessed by reference, not only  to what is reasonable but also to what was necessary (see Home Office v Lownds);
• The court fee is £75 (currently: the fee may change from year to year). You may also be asked to pay £40 to discharge a consent order fee. The order will usually be for the purposes of vacating any hearing that has been listed, giving directions for the disclosure of the evidence set out in the application notice (if you have not provided it in the mean time) and to enshrine an order for costs;
• Time spent: such application notices are pro-forma and if a pro-forma document has not been used, it should have been. Anticipate 18-30 minutes of time to draft the application plus a couple of letters. Also, you should allow for say 12-18 minutes for the preparation of the schedule of costs (if one has been prepared);
• Hourly rate: Who is dealing with the case at their offices? Is the category of fee-earner who drafted the notice the right category of fee-earner to deal with the claim? For example, a grade A fee-earner should not be dealing with a low value, rear end collision, RTA. Who in fact prepared the notice? Who is it signed by? Use the SCCO Guideline Rates for summary assessment. A grade C rate is usually appropriate. The rate to apply to the costs is the cheaper of either where the solicitors are based or the claimant’s local court (per the case of Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters);
• Success fee:
  • CPR Rule 44.3A(1) provides that The court will not assess any additional liability until the conclusion of the proceedings, or the part of the proceedings, to which the funding arrangement relates;
  • Also, a success fee is only payable under a CFA or CCFA in the event that a ‘win’ is achieved, and ‘win’ is normally defined as being ‘an agreement or order to pay damages’;
  • Consequently, a success fee is not recoverable at the stage of an application for Pre-action Disclosure. So, you should not pay a success fee on the costs of an application for Pre-action Disclosure if one is claimed (although it may be claimed and paid at the end of the case if the claimant does ‘win’).

Double recovery

Something else to look out for in respect of the costs of these applications is an attempt to claim the costs again at the end of a claim. Keep an eye out for the court fee(s) appearing in a statement of costs for summary assessment as that will give you an indication as to whether the other costs have been included too.

In the event the claimant’s claim is funded by way of a CFA, then the success fee that you were not previously able to pay on the costs of the application by reason of CPR 44.3A(1) may be claimed at the conclusion of the claim by reason of CPR 44.3A(2).

Our support was organised by Beci Trow and 15 members of staff volunteered for the run/walk, we were accompanied by other friends and family and the team effort was a great success. Employees contributed their own entrance fee with the company providing t shirts to wear.

Members of staff whom took part were: Kirstie Abbott, Paul Barke, Emily Candy, Lisa Corrado, Joanne Dale, Katia Farchica, Davina Hall, Adrian Jaggard, Antony Jaggard, Dawn Jaggard, Emma Johnson, Chris Newns, Nellie Selgjekaj, Linda Smith and Beci Trow.

Luckily the weather was on our side and it was a great day all round, we are looking forward to the next charity event!

Thank you very much for your sponsorship, we managed to raise over £700.00 for Sport Relief which provides help/funds at home and abroad.

In its seventh year, the CPD accredited conference aimed to provide those who attended with the latest industry knowledge and developments. The morning focussed on the incoming MOJ RTA claims process, and the afternoon turned to Lord Justice Jackson’s Final Report on Civil Costs.

Adrian Jaggard, Managing Director of Jaggards started off the day with an insightful and informative update on the new RTA process. Following on from Adrian’s presentation an open forum was held, where Kevin Westall from the Ministry of Justice joined the panel to answer queries from the floor.

Dan Cutts, President of FOIL, spoke about The Law Firm of the Future giving an insightful perspective on solicitors and their likely adaptation to the MOJ and Jackson reforms.

Graham Plumb, Claims Technical Manager of AXA Insurance, roused and entertained the audience with his wry presentation on an insurer’s perspective on the Jackson report.

In the afternoon, Professor Paul Fenn, Assessor for the Jackson Report, gave a much anticipated presentation on the economist’s perspective, particularly how some of the proposals were arrived at.

Robert Carter, Senior Partner at Taylor Rose Law examined some of the key planks of Jackson’s Final Report and considered whether they would be effective.

Matthew Hoe, Legal Director of Jaggards and Head of Strategy at Taylor Rose Law ended the day with a call to arms to insurers to pro-actively seek implementation of the Jackson recommendations.

Special thanks go to our guest speakers:

• Kevin Westall (Ministry of Justice)
• Dan Cutts (President: FOIL)
• Graham Plumb (AXA Insurance)
• Professor Fenn (Assessor, Jackson Report)

Jaggards and supervising solicitors, McCullagh & Co briefed delegates with the latest costs law updates and developments in this CPD accredited event.

Adrian Jaggard, CEO of Jaggards opened with a frontline update on the incoming Ministry of Justice reforms claims process. Robert Carter, Principal of McCullagh & Co gave a much anticipated presentation entitled ‘Judging Jackson: Jackson LJ’s Interim Report on Costs’. David Cooper, Legal Executive and Costs Lawyer, McCullagh & Co discussed ‘Costs Estimates and Costs Capping’; Matthew Hoe, Legal Director of Jaggards and Test Litigator at McCullagh & Co took us through the ‘Latest Developments in Costs Litigation’; and Stephen Hines, Solicitor at McCullagh & Co concluded the presentations with a piece on ‘Detailed Assessment Hearings: The Front Line’.

Special thanks go to our two guest speakers: District Judge Duerden, Regional Costs Judge from Bury County Court, who charmed the audience with his anecdotes of costs and his views as a regional costs judge; and Andrew Hogan, Barrister from Ropewalk Chambers, Nottingham, who spoke about what happens ‘When an ATE Insurer Refuses to Pay Out’. Their contributions, as were all speakers’ presentations, were very well received and served as an ideal ‘shot in the arm’, hopefully to all delegates.

Feedback was universally positive and Judge Duerden has commented:

“I was very impressed by the quality of the presentations and the clear grasp of the subject of all the other speakers. It is most encouraging to know that there is such talent around in the field of costs. You are to be congratulated for putting on such a high standard conference and I am pleased to be associated with it.”

If you would like to feedback on the conference, please fill in this short questionnaire.

• 

  Adrian Jaggard opening the conference

• 

  Judge Duerden responds to a point raised during the Q&A session

• 

  Stephen Hines giving his presentation on detailed assessment hearings

• 

  The conference had a convivial and relaxing atmosphere, with lunch on the terrace

Sir Rupert Jackson published his preliminary report on 8 May in preparation for a public consultation exercise. He is being assisted with the review by a small group of ‘assessors’ who meet on a monthly basis to discuss issues and findings.

The panel of assessors comprises:

• Mr Justice Cranston
• Professor Paul Fenn
• Senior Costs Judge Master Peter Hurst
• Jeremy Morgan QC
• Michael Napier QC
• Andrew Parker
• Colin Stutt

Bypassing the civil procedure rules committee entirely, these rules were made by the Lord Chancellor personally under powers conferred by the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and insert a new part 79 into the CPR. Frankly, there is not much here of interest to civil practitioners as such, though it will undoubtedly be of interest to civil libertarians.