header-logo header-logo

MPs crack the whip

18 January 2012
Issue: 7497 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Committee urges new law to tackle rising whiplash claims

MPs have called for legislation to curb the rising number of whiplash claims in the event the Jackson reforms fail to reduce them.

In their second report on the rising cost of car insurance, published last week, MPs on the transport select committee said: “The rise in personal injury claims, most of which are for whiplash injuries, is the main reason for the rise in premiums.

“It is difficult to diagnose whiplash objectively and this has deterred insurers from defending claims in court. We recommend that the bar to receiving compensation in whiplash cases should be raised.”

The MPs noted that the government is implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s reforms, which could “reduce the money in the system and encourage insurers to defend claims more vigorously”.

However, they continued: “If the number of whiplash claims does not fall significantly as a result, there would in our view be a strong case to consider primary legislation to require objective evidence of a whiplash injury, or of the injury having a significant effect on the claimant’s life, before compensation was paid.”

About 70% of motor-insurance personal-injury claims involve whiplash.

An Association of Personal Injury Lawyers spokesperson says: “Whiplash injuries can be extremely painful and can often linger, leaving some people with chronic conditions.

“It must be remembered that the burden of proof lies with the victim. The defendant has every right, and opportunity, to challenge medical opinion if it is thought to be wrong. 

“Any measures which risk blocking people from making valid claims will leave injury victims and taxpayers effectively subsidising the insurance companies who have already accepted our premiums.”

The committee called for increased transparency in regard to referral fees. It also recommended that the government provide them with updates on the timetable for its project to enable insurance firms to gain access in real-time to the DVLA database and its review of the penalties associated with motoring without insurance.

Issue: 7497 / 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