header-logo header-logo

Change of plan on fixed costs?

19 October 2016
Issue: 7719 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

CPRC meeting minutes reveal govt is rethinking clinical neglience claims proposals

The government is considering rowing back from plans for fixed recoverable costs for clinical negligence claims up to £100,000.

Instead, fixed costs would be introduced for claims up to £25,000.

The change of plan was revealed this week in minutes distributed from a July meeting of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC). Item 4 reports a change in policy at the Department of Health, which intends to consult in respect of claims up to £25,000 (accounting for about 60% of clinical negligence claims). 

Nina Ali, clinical negligence partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen, said: “At first glance this is of course a welcome change of policy. 

“However, unless there is a proper and effective consultation and ultimately acceptance that there are a number of case types that must be made exceptions of, this change of policy and playing with numbers is meaningless.”
Ali emphasised that it was important not to equate the complexity or the importance of a case with its financial value. Complex cases often fall below the £25,000 threshold, for example, those involving fatalities, human rights, the elderly and people with disabilities.

“Fatal cases can also involve inquests and human rights issues,” she said. “Where the deceased is a person with no earnings, the claim is inevitably going to be lower in strict financial terms than if they were a wealthy individual, for example, a company director in their 30s with dependents.”

Legal aid is not available for clinical injury claims, with the exception of birth injuries.

The Department of Health declined to comment but confirmed that it will be consulting on different thresholds for fixed costs.

The Department initially planned to introduce fixed costs up to £100,000. CPRC minutes from July 2015 show that the intended implementation date, if the plans were agreed, was October 2016. The Department was then exploring whether to consult on a limit of £250,000. It said legal costs were too high, at £260m or 22% of the total spend on clinical negligence in the year 2013/14. 

Issue: 7719 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll