header-logo header-logo

Ministers step back from whiplash reform

23 March 2022
Issue: 7972 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has dropped plans for further reforms to whiplash claims for the time being, prompting relief among claimant personal injury lawyers

Publishing its delayed response to the second part of its consultation ‘Reforming the soft tissue injury (whiplash) claims process’ this week, the MoJ confirmed there would be no change to the recoverability of disbursements since adding further restrictions at this time ‘would put undue burdens on unrepresented claimants’.

The MoJ response confirms it will not make changes to QOCS (qualified one-way costs shifting). Nor will it pursue the implementation of a Barème system, which combines fixed tables of damages with a ‘points-based’ scoring system to assess severity of claim.

It also ‘does not currently intend to pursue’ its proposals on early notification of claims and seeking treatment within a set period of time, although this will be kept under review.

Neil McKinley, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) said: ‘The proposals included consequences for injured people who wait to bring their claims or wait to seek medical help, even though there are often legitimate reasons for why they would delay.

‘Several proposals in this section of the consultation were in reaction to behaviours which are perceived to be indicative of fraud. They were disproportionate and unfair to claimants, the vast majority of whom are genuinely injured people.’

Qamar Anwar, managing director of First4Lawyers, said: ‘While this response has been a long time coming, we welcome the fact that the government has finally seen sense and decided against further reform.

‘The MoJ should focus on fixing a broken system before it attempts any more ill-advised changes and given past failures should commit to meaningful consultation with the industry before it does.’

The MoJ published its consultation in November 2016 but decided to split its proposed reforms into two parts. The first part, setting fixed tariffs for whiplash injury and banning offers to settle without a medical report, appeared in the Civil Liability Act 2018 and came into force in May 2021. The government’s work on the second part was postponed and subsequently interrupted by the pandemic.
Issue: 7972 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll