header-logo header-logo

07 July 2011
Issue: 7473 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Judicial review of Jackson?

Medical injuries charities have mounted a legal challenge against government proposals
to reform “no win, no fee” agreements

The Spinal Injuries Association (SIA) launched judicial review proceedings in the High Court last week against the Jackson reforms in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which would see victims paying some of their legal fees from their compensation.

It claims the government: failed to carry out proper assessments of how its proposals would affect disabled people; ignored the high level of opposition to its plans, including from some senior judges; took insufficient note of arguments that its plans would hinder access to justice; and left an insufficient time between the consultation closing and the justice secretary issuing a response in the House of Commons.

The action is supported by other victims groups including brain injury charity Headway and Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA).

Dan Burden, head of public affairs at the SIA, said: “A newly injured person who is facing up to a life of permanent disability and paralysis should be entitled to obtain good quality legal advice which is independent, without financial pressures impacting their decision to progress a claim.”

The Institute of Legal Executives (Ilex) issued a briefing note to MPs last week, ahead of the second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons. It said uncertainty over recovery of costs would prevent the pursuit of legitimate claims, that the loss of 25% of damages by a high proportion of claimants would increase NHS care costs, and that the changes would reduce the availability and affordability of after the event insurance products, which would still be required for non-personal injury matters, as well as some PI matters.

Last week, justice secretary, Ken Clarke announced a £20m fund to help law centres and not-for-profit advice agencies adjust to the proposed £350m legal aid cuts.

The announcement, made during the Bill’s second reading, follows warnings from the Law Centres Federation that several centres were under threat.

Issue: 7473 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll