header-logo header-logo

17 November 2011
Issue: 7490 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Case conundrum?

APIL warns of the “ominous formula” of legal reforms

Non-lawyers at claims management firms could be left in charge of running complex personal injury cases in future as a result of government reforms, legal campaigners have claimed.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) issued a dire warning this week about the future for victims of negligence as a result of the Legal Aid Bill and the ban on referral fees in personal injury cases.

“Proposed reforms to the way people can fund legal cases plus a ban on referral fees is an ominous formula which could lead to marketing men at claims management companies actually running personal injury cases,” says APIL president, David Bott.

“If proposals going through Parliament come into force, new options for funding legal cases will be available and will allow inexperienced and unqualified people to start running cases until the point they go to court. Claims management companies are very good at advertising legal services, but they’re not lawyers. These businesses won’t be making any money from referral fees after they are banned, so will need to do something else to survive.

“Changes in the current Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will open the door for them to start handling cases themselves.”

APIL called for personal injury to be made a “reserved activity”—only open to appropriately qualified legal professionals—in its response to the Legal Services Board consultation, “Enhancing consumer protection”, which closed for comments at the beginning of November.

Bott says: “A claims management company would need to settle a case to recover the costs and stay in business.

“The case would have to be taken over by a solicitor when it gets as far as court, so they will want to settle before it gets that far. This could mean cases are under-settled and injured people don’t receive all the damages they need for their future care.”

Issue: 7490 / Categories: Legal News
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