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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll