header-logo header-logo

20 June 2013 / Theo Richardson-Gool
Issue: 7565 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Too high a price

rexfeatures_1374584a

Plans to reform whiplash claims will marginalise victims, says Theo Richardson-Gool

Later this year, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is likely to come to a decision over its plans to increase the small claims threshold from £1,000 to £5,000, for victims of road traffic accidents. The government has made a commitment to tackle fraudulent whiplash claims and reduce consequent legal costs. More recently, there has been speculation that this limit could be raised as high as £15,000 for all personal injury claims.

By raising the claims threshold, the government believes most whiplash claims will go through the small claims court, and thus prevent rising insurance premiums and reduce costs for defendants (often insurers) when challenging fraudulent whiplash claims. The impetus is for personal injury victims to either represent themselves or bear the costs of legal representation, as opposed to insurers paying for such costs under the current rules.

The MoJ has been spurred on by estimates from insurers that whiplash claims add £90 a year to the average motor insurance policy, although

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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