header-logo header-logo

13 December 2012
Issue: 7542 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Whiplash backlash

Injured will have to go “head to head” in court

The small-claims threshold for whiplash and road-traffic claims could be raised from £1,000 to £5,000, under Ministry of Justice (MoJ) proposals to curb the number of fraudulent claims. The MoJ consultation, Reducing the Number and Costs of Whiplash Claims, also proposes setting up independent medical panels to determine whether claims are genuine.

According to James Dalton, head of motor and liability insurance at the Association of British Insurers, 1,500 whiplash claims are made each day, adding £90 to the average annual motor insurance premium. He says: “More effective diagnosis of whiplash will help genuine claimants get paid out quickly and reduce the scope for fraud.”

However, Iain Stark, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, says the proposals “could spell disaster for both consumers and the legal profession. Access to justice will be the ultimate victim. I foresee a whole new unregulated industry being created to handle claims below £5,000. Furthermore, the courts will be flooded with litigants in person, which will put huge strain on their already limited resources”. He adds: “It is said that we all pay an extra £90 on our insurance because of whiplash claims and so the government must hold insurers to account if premiums do not fall as a result. And maybe the authorities should do more to prosecute those bringing fraudulent claims.”

Claimant lawyers also oppose the plans. Mark Grover, chief executive of personal injury firm Antony Hodari & Co, says: “Though fraud is a problem, the vast majority of claims are legitimate; raising the small-claims limit will just mean that an injured person will have to go head to head in court against the insurer’s lawyer. How many of us would want to do that?”

Issue: 7542 / 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
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