header-logo header-logo

06 January 2017 / Patrick Allen
Issue: 7728 / Categories: Opinion , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

No justice without representation...or costs

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll