header-logo header-logo

Ministers step back from whiplash reform

23 March 2022
Issue: 7972 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has dropped plans for further reforms to whiplash claims for the time being, prompting relief among claimant personal injury lawyers

Publishing its delayed response to the second part of its consultation ‘Reforming the soft tissue injury (whiplash) claims process’ this week, the MoJ confirmed there would be no change to the recoverability of disbursements since adding further restrictions at this time ‘would put undue burdens on unrepresented claimants’.

The MoJ response confirms it will not make changes to QOCS (qualified one-way costs shifting). Nor will it pursue the implementation of a Barème system, which combines fixed tables of damages with a ‘points-based’ scoring system to assess severity of claim.

It also ‘does not currently intend to pursue’ its proposals on early notification of claims and seeking treatment within a set period of time, although this will be kept under review.

Neil McKinley, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) said: ‘The proposals included consequences for injured people who wait to bring their claims or wait to seek medical help, even though there are often legitimate reasons for why they would delay.

‘Several proposals in this section of the consultation were in reaction to behaviours which are perceived to be indicative of fraud. They were disproportionate and unfair to claimants, the vast majority of whom are genuinely injured people.’

Qamar Anwar, managing director of First4Lawyers, said: ‘While this response has been a long time coming, we welcome the fact that the government has finally seen sense and decided against further reform.

‘The MoJ should focus on fixing a broken system before it attempts any more ill-advised changes and given past failures should commit to meaningful consultation with the industry before it does.’

The MoJ published its consultation in November 2016 but decided to split its proposed reforms into two parts. The first part, setting fixed tariffs for whiplash injury and banning offers to settle without a medical report, appeared in the Civil Liability Act 2018 and came into force in May 2021. The government’s work on the second part was postponed and subsequently interrupted by the pandemic.
Issue: 7972 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
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