It wants to investigate whether vulnerable people are disadvantaged in bringing or defending claims, and invites views on the draft ‘vulnerability rule’ that sets out judicial controls over the recognition of and remedy for vulnerability in line with existing rules.
It proposes that whether or not the vulnerability gives rise to sufficient extra work to justify additional costs will be a judicial decision, the threshold for this additional work should be 20% and the additional recoverable costs be without ceiling, and a clear and simple procedure must be used to establish a vulnerability uplift. It suggests the process be retrospective to ensure the judge is satisfied the extra work has been incurred (read more here).
The CPRC agrees with the Ministry of Justice that vulnerability should not be given a definition in relation to FRC. Instead, judges could refer to Practice Direction 1A, ‘Participation of vulnerable parties and witnesses’.
It is also suggesting amendments to the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) regime in personal injury cases, including amending CPR 44 so a claimant’s entitlement to costs is considered to be part of the overall fund against which the set-off can be applied, and extending costs orders to deemed orders, so a defendant can enforce a deemed order for costs following the acceptance of a Part 36 offer without seeking permission from the court.
View the consultation at here and respond by 20 June.
Meanwhile, the Law Society has expressed concerns about the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) consultation on FRCs in lower value clinical negligence claims, valued up to £25,000. It said the proposed costs were ‘based on figures put forward by defendant practitioners’ and did ‘not support including fatalities in the scheme’.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=3d1684d4_1)
