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

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