header-logo header-logo

Judicial review of Jackson?

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll