Last Monday, a group of leading experts in civil justice - many of them solicitors - gathered for a comprehensive discussion on some of the crucial detail concerning the rules required to implement Lord Justice Jackson’s radical reform of civil litigation costs.

With the reforms on course to be introduced next year, despite vocal opposition from claimants, there are still plenty of battles to be fought between claimants and defendants on the detail.

The meeting, also attended by justice minister Jonathan Djanogly and Ministry of Justice civil servants, discussed a 102-page document drawn up by the Civil Justice Council’s working party on the costs aspects of the reforms. The tome, which is surprisingly readable, represents the many hours spent by the working party - comprising some of the most talented and experienced practitioners in the field of costs - in analysing and weighing up how the reforms might best work in practice.

But before the experts could get stuck into their discussions, they were given a written outline of Lord Justice Jackson’s own comments on the document, which have also been published on the judiciary’s website. He may not have been present, but his influence was still felt.

Jackson warned against any ‘elaborate practice note’ seeking to implement his proportionality rule. He also suggested that a few ‘robust Court of Appeal decisions’ would be needed to deal with the points raised - no prizes for guessing who’ll be sitting on the bench.

The Court of Appeal judge clearly still has much to contribute to the implementation of the reforms. But his influence should not overpower that of the experts on the ground who have spent much time poring over the detail of the proposals, and have an invaluable understanding of the more subtle effects of the various options for implementation, and their impact on their clients or businesses.

While the judge’s intervention may have caused some consternation among those present at the meeting, a source of greater concern for some was the MoJ’s plans to introduce a means test to be eligible for qualified one-way costs shifting (a system put forward by Jackson designed to protect personal injury claimants from having to pay costs if they lose in most cases).

One option being considered by the MoJ is the exclusion of higher income tax payers from QOCs; though that would not appear to tally with Jackson’s original suggestion that only the ‘conspicuously wealthy’ should be excluded.

Another worry from the claimants’ perspective is a further MoJ plan to introduce some kind of minimum payment by claimants where QOCs applies, possibly linked to income.

Both MoJ proposals met with strong opposition from the claimant side last week; though whether they have succeeded in convincing the minister remains to be seen.

The CJC working group’s analysis of the options for implementing Jackson’s reforms to proportionality, Part 36 offers and QOCs will be covered in more depth in the next issue of Litigation Funding magazine.

Follow Rachel on Twitter