header-logo header-logo

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

Lawyers hit out over whiplash

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—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll