header-logo header-logo

29 August 2023
Issue: 8038 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Procedure & practice , Personal injury , Clinical negligence
printer mail-detail

APIL issues judicial challenge over fixed recoverable costs

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) issued judicial review proceedings last week against the Lord Chancellor over new rules to extend fixed recoverable costs.

APIL contends the government failed properly to consult on the new rules, due to come in on 1 October. It argues the rules lack clarity about when fixed costs might apply—the rules say clinical negligence claims valued between £25,000 and £100,000 should move to the intermediate track ‘if both breach of duty and causation have been admitted’, but do not specify at what stage those admissions must be made. If made late, a solicitor will not recoup enough to make the work viable, deterring them from taking on cases within this value bracket.

APIL’s challenge also covers provisions relating to vulnerable people, the exclusion of inquests, the restoration of companies to the Companies Register from the regime, and whether the rules infringe freedom of contract.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Switalskis—five appointments

Switalskis—five appointments

Firm expands national abuse compensation team

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

IP firm announces new partners and senior promotions across UK offices

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen promotes five lawyers to the partnership

NEWS
Executors may be overlooking billions of pounds in estate assets hidden in forgotten investments and misplaced share certificates
Britain’s booming non-surgical cosmetics market is operating in what some critics describe as a regulatory ‘Wild West’
Family contact disputes are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of Court of Protection litigation
Material obtained through US discovery applications may have a much longer legal life than many litigants realise
English courts are developing a distinctly practical approach to sanctions disputes arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
back-to-top-scroll