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

Devonshires—Rebecca Eastwood

Devonshires—Rebecca Eastwood

Housing management and property litigation practice strengthened by Leeds partner hire

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

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