header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 January 2017 / Patrick Allen
Issue: 7728 / Categories: Opinion , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

No justice without representation...or costs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The profession should unite to condemn proposals to take damages from injured people, says Patrick Allen

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has launched yet another consultation paper about raising the small claims limit for personal injury claims (Reforming the soft tissue injury (whiplash) claims process). On my count this is the seventh such consultation since 1991.

All previous consultations came to the same conclusion—the small claims track is not suitable for personal injury (PI) claims because the no cost rule means claimants will not have legal representation. This will put them at an insuperable disadvantage in an area of complex law, evidence and procedure, where the defendants will always be represented by experienced insurance claims handlers and lawyers. Unrepresented claimants will abandon their claims in the face of a denial of liability or will be tempted to under settle, having no idea of the true value of their claim.

So why another consultation on the same topic? Insurers, who have a long record of financial support for the Tory party, have

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
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 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
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
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
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’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
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’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll