header-logo header-logo

Disappointing PI reforms

31 July 2008
Issue: 7332 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Legal news

Proposed government reforms designed to streamline the personal injury (PI) claims process are too limited and have potential loopholes, lawyers say.

The Minis t ry of Justice’s response to the consultation document includes radical changes to the procedure for road traffic accident claims. It provides for early notification of claims between £1,000 and £10,000 and introduces fixed time periods and fixed recoverable costs.

There will be no change to the limit of small claims, including those for PI and housing disrepair claims, the government says, but the fast track limit increases from £15,000 to £25,000 and defendants will now only be allowed 15 days to respond on liability issues, with no right to an extension of time.

Browne Jacobson lawyer Nick Parsons says the ability to refer a settlement pack prepared before proceedings to a judge for a decision on quantum will be an important development, particularly given the potential for duplication of work after issue of a claim under the current process.

He adds, however: “It is disappointing that there is no provision for a judge to make a decision on the papers, even in the lowest value claims. In most cases, the parties to a claim have no desire to go to court, seeing it as a disproportionately expensive step. A paper-based process would help promote quick and efficient justice.”

As with predictive fees, he says, there are also potential loopholes which some could exploit: “There are circumstances in which claims will come outside the procedure including where the defendant raises contributory negligence and where medical reports show causation issues.”

Dolmans partner, Simon Evans, says: “There has been substantial backtracking by government from their initial laudable aims and proposals. What we have ended up with is avoidance of the real issues in personal injury processes. The increase in the fast track limit, while welcome, does not substantially alter the landscape. To do nothing about the excessive claimant costs, those of after the event premiums and to allow recovery of those fees before a defendant even knows the case it has to meet and has had a chance to respond is very disappointing.”

An APIL spokesperson says that the stated increase to the fast track limit does not currently allow complex claims to move into the multi track: “We would like to see such provisions included in the new rule or practice direction... and are concerned that this increased limit will result in many cases being allocated to the fast track when they are complex and more suited to the multi track procedure.”

Issue: 7332 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll