Legal news
Proposed government reforms designed to streamline the personal injury (PI) claims process are too limited and have potential loopholes, lawyers say.
The Minis t ry of Justice’s response to the consultation document includes radical changes to the procedure for road traffic accident claims. It provides for early notification of claims between £1,000 and £10,000 and introduces fixed time periods and fixed recoverable costs.
There will be no change to the limit of small claims, including those for PI and housing disrepair claims, the government says, but the fast track limit increases from £15,000 to £25,000 and defendants will now only be allowed 15 days to respond on liability issues, with no right to an extension of time.
Browne Jacobson lawyer Nick Parsons says the ability to refer a settlement pack prepared before proceedings to a judge for a decision on quantum will be an important development, particularly given the potential for duplication of work after issue of a claim under the current process.
He adds, however: “It is disappointing that there is no provision for a judge to make a decision on the papers, even in the lowest value claims. In most cases, the parties to a claim have no desire to go to court, seeing it as a disproportionately expensive step. A paper-based process would help promote quick and efficient justice.”
As with predictive fees, he says, there are also potential loopholes which some could exploit: “There are circumstances in which claims will come outside the procedure including where the defendant raises contributory negligence and where medical reports show causation issues.”
Dolmans partner, Simon Evans, says: “There has been substantial backtracking by government from their initial laudable aims and proposals. What we have ended up with is avoidance of the real issues in personal injury processes. The increase in the fast track limit, while welcome, does not substantially alter the landscape. To do nothing about the excessive claimant costs, those of after the event premiums and to allow recovery of those fees before a defendant even knows the case it has to meet and has had a chance to respond is very disappointing.”
An APIL spokesperson says that the stated increase to the fast track limit does not currently allow complex claims to move into the multi track: “We would like to see such provisions included in the new rule or practice direction... and are concerned that this increased limit will result in many cases being allocated to the fast track when they are complex and more suited to the multi track procedure.”
