header-logo header-logo

02 February 2022
Issue: 7965 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Fixed costs for clinical negligence

Clinical negligence claimants seeking damages of £25,000 or less would only be able to recover limited costs, under government proposals

The Department of Health and Social Care launched its consultation, ‘Fixed recoverable costs in lower value clinical negligence claims’, this week. Under the proposals, a streamlined ‘twin-track’ process would operate with costs limited to £6,000 plus 20% of damages for ‘standard track’ and to £1,500 plus 10% of damages for ‘light track’ claims process. The amount of compensation recoverable would not be affected.

Claims could be excluded from the fixed costs scheme if three or more liability experts were required, multiple defendants (with different allegations against each defendant) were involved, the claim involved stillbirth or neonatal death, or the defendant raises limitation as an issue.

Health minister Maria Caulfield said the proposals aligned closely with work done by the Civil Justice Council, could save £454m over ten years, and aimed to lower the cost of claims and speed up the compensation process.

However, lawyers said the costs restrictions would act as a barrier to potential claimants.

Stephanie Prior, partner at Osbornes Law, said: ‘If these changes are brought in then I expect many specialist clinical negligence lawyers will not be able to take on these low value claims anymore.

‘While it is true that costs can spiral on cases this is generally because the NHS lawyers sometimes drag out cases for an inordinate amount of time, which inevitably has to be paid for.’

Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) representative Suzanne Trask said the proposed costs limits fell below recommendations from patient safety lawyers.

‘It is extremely disappointing that the starting point of these proposals puts a significant hurdle in the way of patients seeking the compensation they need to rebuild their lives after needless injury. Costs must allow for a proper investigation and fair resolution of a claim.’

Qamar Anwar, managing director of First4Lawyers, said: ‘It is true that legal costs have risen in recent years. However, this is only in line with the overall increase in all costs associated with medical negligence claims.’

The consultation closes on 24 April at 11.45pm.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Employment boutique strengthens data protection and privacy offering with senior consultant hire

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
back-to-top-scroll