header-logo header-logo

07 July 2011
Issue: 7473 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Judicial review of Jackson?

Medical injuries charities have mounted a legal challenge against government proposals
to reform “no win, no fee” agreements

The Spinal Injuries Association (SIA) launched judicial review proceedings in the High Court last week against the Jackson reforms in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which would see victims paying some of their legal fees from their compensation.

It claims the government: failed to carry out proper assessments of how its proposals would affect disabled people; ignored the high level of opposition to its plans, including from some senior judges; took insufficient note of arguments that its plans would hinder access to justice; and left an insufficient time between the consultation closing and the justice secretary issuing a response in the House of Commons.

The action is supported by other victims groups including brain injury charity Headway and Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA).

Dan Burden, head of public affairs at the SIA, said: “A newly injured person who is facing up to a life of permanent disability and paralysis should be entitled to obtain good quality legal advice which is independent, without financial pressures impacting their decision to progress a claim.”

The Institute of Legal Executives (Ilex) issued a briefing note to MPs last week, ahead of the second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons. It said uncertainty over recovery of costs would prevent the pursuit of legitimate claims, that the loss of 25% of damages by a high proportion of claimants would increase NHS care costs, and that the changes would reduce the availability and affordability of after the event insurance products, which would still be required for non-personal injury matters, as well as some PI matters.

Last week, justice secretary, Ken Clarke announced a £20m fund to help law centres and not-for-profit advice agencies adjust to the proposed £350m legal aid cuts.

The announcement, made during the Bill’s second reading, follows warnings from the Law Centres Federation that several centres were under threat.

Issue: 7473 / 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