header-logo header-logo

Lawyers hit out over whiplash

06 January 2017
Issue: 7728 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Plans to reform whiplash cause frustration within the legal profession

Lawyers have condemned government plans to raise the small claims limit and curb the right to claim for whiplash and other soft-tissue injuries.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation, Reforming the soft tissue injury (whiplash) claims process, is due to close this week. It proposes that compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) for minor whiplash claims either be removed entirely or replaced by a fixed sum. It proposes a tariff of payments for more significant whiplash claims, raising the small claims limit in personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000 and banning the settling of whiplash claims without a medical report from an accredited medical expert. Claimants would still be able to claim for other forms of loss such as medical costs or the loss of earnings.

According to the MoJ, the number of personal injury claims following a traffic accident is 50% higher than in 2006.

However, Amanda Stevens, group head of legal practice at Hudgell Solicitors, said: “The consultation proceeds on the assumption that soft-tissue injuries are inconsequential and do not need compensation—when the reality is very different.”

“What is so frustrating is that many of the reforms are expressly stated to be based on anecdotal evidence.”

Writing in NLJ this week, Patrick Allen, senior partner at Hodge, Jones and Allen, said it is generally acknowledged that modern cars are stronger but stiffer thus reducing more serious injuries but leading to more soft tissue claims.

He said there had been seven MoJ consultations on raising the small claims limit in the past 10 years, each one reaching the same conclusion. This was that the small claims track is not suitable for personal injury claims because “the no cost rule means claimants will not have legal representation”.

Consequently, future claimants would be expected “to be able to understand and apply the law of negligence, liability, causation and quantum, instruct and pay for a medical expert, quantify their claim, pay a court fee, obtain witness evidence from independent witnesses, negotiate with insurers and ultimately appear in court as their own advocate against a legally experienced opponent”.

Issue: 7728 / 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