header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 January 2020 / David Locke
Issue: 7872 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs, experts, myths & legends: a sequel

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The argument about legal costs in clinical negligence & personal injury litigation shows no sign of abating, says David Locke
  • Going round in circles: legal costs arguments.
  • Back to the future: retreating to the days of the Review of Civil Litigation Costs.
  • The role of experts: an adversarial approach.
  • Potential solutions: early disclosure of evidence and joint experts?

The argument about legal costs in clinical negligence (and personal injury) litigation cycles back around in ever decreasing circles, depressingly without any real nuance in the arguments at each repetition. Although it has been sadly overlooked in recent days, things are changing. However, in the face of lurid headlines and eye-watering figures, there is an apparently irresistible urge to retreat to the trenches that were dug during the Review of Civil Litigation Costs, and indeed even before that.

Slay the tropes

In response to concerns about claimant solicitor fees, the most often repeated trope (heard many times recently) is that medical defence organisations,

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll