header-logo header-logo

17 November 2016
Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The end for whiplash?

Lawyers have given a strong reaction to government proposals to remove or cap whiplash damages and increase the small claims limit for personal injury cases.

The proposals were announced this week in a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation, Reforming the Soft Tissue Injury (whiplash) Claims Process. They are to remove compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for whiplash claims, or cap them at £425. The small claims limit would be raised from £1,000 to £5,000 and the government would ban settlement of whiplash claims without a medical report from an accredited medical expert. Claimants would still be able to sue for loss of earnings, medical costs or other forms of loss. A tariff system would be introduced for more serious injuries.

In the foreword to the proposals, Lord Keen, MoJ spokesman in the House of Lords, said the number of whiplash claims had risen by 50% in the past decade despite fewer accidents being reported. The average payment for a minor whiplash claim is £1,850 and the cost of dealing with them “is out of all proportion to any genuine injury suffered”.

However, Brett Dixon, vice president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil), called the proposals “heavy handed and excessive”. Instead, the government should focus on banning cold calling by claims management companies, he said.

Dixon said the proposals would force the vast majority of personal injury victims into the small claims court, where they would have to front the cost of bringing a claim themselves.

Ian Davies, partner at insurance law firm Kennedys, said the proposed reforms on whiplash claims “will come as a significant boost to many insurers and a severe blow to many in the claimant market, who were no more than a month ago celebrating the reforms being seemingly shelved.

“The boundaries of the consultation appear to go further than previously proposed. Consequently, it is sure to generate a forceful response from all quarters. What the government must also consider is the potential for unintended consequences.”

Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll