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

Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Banking and finance practice bolstered by partner hire

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

Commercial litigation team welcomes senior associate in Birmingham

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll