header-logo header-logo

Fixed costs for clinical negligence

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll