header-logo header-logo

05 September 2012
Issue: 7528 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Clinical negligence strife hits NHS

Highest ever rate of increase for claims

Doctors and dentists are facing the highest ever rate of increase in clinical negligence claims—a fact the Medical Defence Union (MDU) attributes partly to “no win, no fee” lawyers.

Last year, “there were noticeable increases in claims frequency, ever-higher settlements and damages awards, and a continuing upward trend in the number of complaints to the professional regulators”, according to the MDU’s 2011 annual report, published in August. Complaints to the General Medical Council (GMC) rose by 23% in 2011 to nearly 8,800.

The MDU reports that it successfully rebuts 70% of claims, and wins more than half of cases that go to trial.

In the report, Jill Harding, head of claims, says the cost of claims is continuing to rise and argues that, while compensating patients is important, “this needs to be balanced against overall affordability of damages and proportionate costs”. She says the MDU does not believe the increase in claim numbers is driven by deteriorating standards of care but is likely to be partly due to “the continuing availability of ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements”.

However, Philippa Luscombe, clinical negligence partner at Penningtons, retorts: “We consider this unlikely given that the availability of funding and the profile of claims has remained broadly the same over the last few years, whereas the number of claims is increasing.

“We also find that this does not explain the 23% increase in claims made to the GMC over the same period—which has very little to do with any claim for compensation.”

Luscombe also takes issue with the MDU’s support for legislative reforms ending recoverability of success fees and introducing a 25% cap—the MDU has proclaimed 100% success fees “a major unfairness in the system”.

Issue: 7528 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll