header-logo header-logo

09 May 2013
Issue: 7559 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

RTA portal fees cut controversy

Plans to slash fees go ahead despite concerns that lawyers won’t be able to cover costs

Severe cuts to road traffic accident (RTA) portal case fees went ahead this week despite fears of personal injury solicitors that the new system is not financially “viable”.

The fees have been slashed from £1,200 to £500 from 1 May, for uncontested compensation claims worth up to £10,000.

The change does not affect the amount of compensation claimants can obtain.

From 31 July, the portal will be extended to include claims worth up to £25,000 and to include employers’ liability and public liability claims.

The cuts in portal fees are part of a package of reforms introduced by the government to put Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations on civil costs into practice. On 1 April, the government implemented major reforms to “no win, no fee” cases and banned referral fees.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling says the “compensation culture” is “pushing up the cost of insurance”.

However, Deborah Evans, chief executive of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) says: “These changes mean lawyers will be faced with a series of fees that are too low to be viable so they will have to recover full success fees just to cover basic costs.

“As they will have to charge the full 25%, it means claimants will only receive 75% of their damages if they win. This reduces further if they have to pay after the event insurance on top of that and further still if they accept earlier offers. Damages may have risen by 10%, but because of these extra costs, claimants will be worse off this year than they were last year.

“APIL’s concerns do not stop there. There is a real inequality between defendant and claimant when claimants work with fixed fees but defendants are unfettered. This could encourage defendants to run up costs in an attempt to price claimants out of the market.

“Unfettered costs give an advantage, particularly in the Pt 36/qualified one-way costs shifting area where the genuinely injured person is held to account for the full amount of defendants’ costs should they fail to beat the Pt 36 offer. We hope the Ministry of Justice will look at this closely.

“Referral fees may have been banned but our concern has always been that they will simply be driven underground. Only time will tell.”

Issue: 7559 / 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