header-logo header-logo

A balanced approach?

14 December 2012 / Karl Tonks
Issue: 7542 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Karl Tonks makes the case for independent legal advice in personal injury cases

Proposals to arbitrarily slash fees in the portal and the fast track will irrevocably damage access to justice for many genuine victims of injury. The fees which have been proposed do not reflect the work involved and only serve to cut independent legal advice from the system.

This is a worrying prospect for members of the public, as without proper legal advice, their access to justice will be severely restricted, if not denied altogether. The government has not made its case for why the fees should be cut and is only proposing to do so because insurers have said they should be cut.

The consultation is proceeding on a false premise that the incoming ban on referral fees will result in a saving from the fixed fee. But referral fees were never included in the original fee negotiations and many firms do not even pay them.

Shared concerns

Our concerns about the proposed fees are not just shared by other

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll