header-logo header-logo

10 October 2012
Issue: 7533 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Jackson caps confirmed

Government sticks to Jackson implementation dates

Damages-based agreements (DBAs) will be capped at 50%, apart from personal injury and employment law cases, the government has announced.

Personal injury DBAs will be capped at 25%, excluding damages for future care and loss. A ministerial statement confirmed the changes will take place in April 2013, as planned—there had been rumours the implementation date might slip.

Success fees for personal injury cases brought on a conditional fee agreement (CFA) basis will also be capped at 25%, excluding damages for future care and loss.

The ban on referral fees in personal injury cases will also go ahead in April 2013, as planned. The road traffic accident personal injury scheme will be extended to include claims up to £25,000, and will include employers’ liability and public liability claims. The Ministry of Justice says it is also considering introducing independent medical panels for whiplash claims and amending the small claims threshold for damages for personal injury claims.

David Greene, a partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ consultant editor, says: “There remain doubts as to whether this can all be done by April. It still looks as if the process is being rushed.”

NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan, of City University, says: “It is no surprise that the government is charging on with reform.

“It will be a major beneficiary for it is invariably on the paying side. The demise of recoverability of success fees and after the event insurance premiums will lighten the costs burden.”

Prof Regan added that the reforms to the road traffic accident scheme were a “non-event”. “Hardly any cases fall within the extended bracket (£10,000-£25,000) and even those caught are more likely to exit as they are quantum high and more susceptible to scrutiny.”

Issue: 7533 / 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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll