Three costs judges from the Senior Court Costs Office broke ranks to object to radical reform of civil litigation, it has emerged.

Masters Campbell, Haworth and Leonard said they were ‘unhappily’ unable to agree with the majority view of the costs judges who supported recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson.

In a report from February uncovered by campaign group Access to Justice Action Group (AJAG), the judges said many of Jackson’s proposals – most of which have been adopted by the Ministry of Justice – were ‘inappropriate’.

They said claimants who have suffered serious medical injuries could lose thousands of pounds intended to pay for their care.

And they blamed the ‘inept’ handling of claims by defendants for allowing costs to spiral out of control.

Their report concluded: ‘The CFA [Conditional Fee Arrangement] has undergone many changes and improvements since implementation.

‘Having taken a decade for these to have been achieved, now is not the time to make radical changes which give no guarantee that access to justice at reduced costs will be delivered.’

The judges said they had dealt with many bills in which the costs had been significantly but avoidably increased by the conduct of defendants.

They added: ‘In some cases, the litigation is conducted with hostility, thereby requiring claimants to address each and every point.

‘In others, defendants delay, thereby causing unnecessary additional costs.

'In others still, settlements are left to the last minute, thereby often triggering the third stage of a three-stage success fee (always 100%), whereas had the defendants opened the negotiations earlier, the figure would have been significantly less.’

The Jackson report proposed capping success fees at 25%, payable from the claimant’s compensation.

General damages in all cases should be increased by 10%, but the dissenting costs judges stated that would often leave claimants denied the compensation they deserved and needed.

The judges recommended standardising litigation insurance premiums wherever possible, reducing the success fee after an admission of liability and restricting the availability of CFAs to individuals.