header-logo header-logo

05 September 2018
Issue: 7807 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

MPs debate whiplash reform

Lawyers urge MPs to ‘take government to task’ over Civil Liability Bill

Personal injury lawyers have highlighted ‘gaping holes’ in the Civil Liability Bill, as MPs gathered for its second reading.

The bill will introduce a system of fixed tariffs for whiplash damages. Secondary legislation will raise the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic accident claims.

Vidisha Joshi, managing partner of Hodge Jones & Allen, said: ‘It’s up to MPs to highlight the gaping holes in this highly questionable bill.

‘It is staggering that such fundamental reform can be based on such flimsy or non-existent evidence—for example, the Ministry of Justice has never explained, despite even the Justice Select Committee asking, how it came up with the figures in the new compensation tariff. What we do know, however, is that the number of claims is falling, while both premiums and insurers’ profits are rising.

‘MPs must also take the government to task over the increase in the small claims limit for personal injury cases, which is so fundamental to the reform programme but is not actually in the bill.’

In a briefing note to MPs, the Personal Injuries Bar Association (PIBA) and Bar Council argued both that the bill’s definition of ‘whiplash injury’ was too wide, and that the bill should not give the Lord Chancellor the power to amend the definition in response to future medical developments.

On the proposals for tariffs, they said there was no evidence to support the suggested level of them. Moreover, there had not been enough time for the effect of recent changes to personal injury claims to become known: for example, the requirement that courts strike out claims that are tainted by dishonesty (s 57, Criminal Courts and Justice Act 2015) and the funding reforms introduced by LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012).

Issue: 7807 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
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