header-logo header-logo

01 October 2009
Issue: 7387 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Agreement reached on fixed costs for road accidents

Three-tier streamlined process to apply from April 2010

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has brokered an agreement between claimants and insurers to set fixed costs and time limits for road accident claims.

The agreement, reached following a lengthy process of discussions and mediation, sets up a three-tier streamlined process, and will apply from April 2010. Only claims that can be settled for £10,000 or less will be included. Fatal accidents, accidents involving children, and accidents where contributory negligence is alleged, will be excluded.

The agreed fixed costs will be: £400 for Stage 1 (the claimant solicitor completes the claim notification form and sends it to the insurer who may admit/deny liability); £800 for Stage 2 (where liability is admitted, the claimant obtains a medical report and the process continues with offers and negotiation of a settlement to a strict timetable); and £250 paper hearing/£500 oral hearing for Stage 3 (where the parties cannot agree a settlement and the case goes to court).

Craig Butler, solicitor in charge of motor accident claims at Bond Pearce, says: “I’ve breathed a sigh of relief at what’s been agreed. The concern was that, if fees were driven too low, then claimants’ access to independent legal advice would disappear, but this is not a situation where claimant lawyers will have to shut up shop.

“I think there are gains to be made on all sides here. Insurers will make savings because of the reduction in litigation. The claimant may get speedier and fairer settlements, and has retained access to independent legal advice. For claimant’s representatives, the deal is not as bad as we feared, it is sustainable.”

Robert Musgrove, CJC chief executive, adds: “These predictable costs, together with the previously agreed costs and success fees, allow a significant proportion of the less complex injury claims to be resolved more quickly and proportionately.”

Issue: 7387 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll