header-logo header-logo

Health & safety verdict delivered

21 October 2010
Issue: 7438 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No win no fee advertising bears brunt of criticism in Lord Young’s report

Lord Young has called for curbs on “no win no fee” adverts by claims farmers and advocated a simplified claims procedure for small claims in his report on health and safety law.

Both insurers and claimant personal injury lawyers have said they support the recommendation for stricter controls on the volume and content of adverts.
Nick Starling, the ABI’s Director of General Insurance and Health, says: “We are very pleased that the report recommends a crackdown on irresponsible claims management firms.

“Not only do they help fuel public belief that behind every accident there should be a claim, but they add costs to the legal system, that ultimately are borne by all insurance customers.”

The report, Common Sense, Common Safety, published last week, recommends a simplified procedure for personal injury claims similar to the existing Road Traffic Accident Personal Injury Scheme, whereby claims for under £10,000 are dealt with on a fixed-cost basis. The limit for claims eligible for that scheme should be extended from £10,000 to £25,000.

Referral fees paid by solicitors to claims companies should be banned, and success fees should cease to be recoverable from the losing party in litigation, as previously recommended by Lord Justice Jackson, it says. There should be risk assessment exemptions for the self-employed who work in low hazard businesses and for employers where employees work from home.

However, Muiris Lyons, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil), says: “What is needed is education so people understand that they cannot be sued for any old accident, but that everyone has a responsibility to avoid the negligence which leads to needless injury which can shatter people’s lives.

“Lord Young’s recommendations about advertising in personal injury will help with this, but they do not go nearly far enough. He also makes the classic error of believing a low value claim is simple when, in fact, that is often far from the truth, especially in workplace and medical claims.”

 

Issue: 7438 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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