header-logo header-logo

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

Fixed costs for clinical negligence?

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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