header-logo header-logo

Fixed costs for clinical negligence?

04 May 2017
Issue: 7744 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers attack government proposals but survey shows overwhelming public support

Government proposals for fixed costs in clinical negligence claims worth up to £25,000 would make only the most straightforward cases commercially viable, leaving many vulnerable patients without a legal remedy, lawyers say.

About 34% of the £1.5bn paid out by the NHS in clinical negligence costs in 2015/16 went on legal costs. The Department of Health (DoH) proposals are contained in its consultation, Fixed recoverable costs for clinical negligence claims, which closed on 2 May.

In its official response to the consultation, law firm Hodge Jones & Allen said the proposals were ‘based on inaccurate cost estimates, fanciful time analysis and flawed logic, including the false premise that lower value claims are by nature less complex, the view that sufficient expert evidence in such cases can be obtained for under £1,200 and that particulars of claim in complex cases can be drafted by junior fee earners’.

Association of Personal Injury Lawyers president Neil Sugarman said: ‘Taking an axe to how much the Department of Health pays does nothing to tackle the factors which drive costs, such as the ludicrously long waiting times for the recovery of medical records, or arduous expert reports.’

However, a survey commissioned by the Medical Protection Society (MPS) found that three-quarters of the public want the government to reduce the amount of money lawyers can claim from the NHS in legal costs, and 81% supported ‘fixed costs’.

The MPS has called on the government to go further to preserve NHS funds, and to impose fixed costs on cases valued at up to £250,000.

Emma Hallinan, director of claims at the MPS, said: ‘In lower value claims it is not unusual to see lawyers’ costs exceed the compensation awarded to claimants.

‘In a recent case involving a delayed diagnosis of a pituitary tumour which settled at £3,250, legal costs of £72,320 were sought. That was reduced to £24,600 after a provisional assessment last summer, which found that the bill was disproportionate.’

Any official response to the consultation will be decided by the new government formed after the 8 June election.

Issue: 7744 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll