header-logo header-logo

Portal pandemonium

30 May 2012
Issue: 7516 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Employer’s & public liability portal “drop-outs”

A fast-track, fixed-costs regime should be set up for employer’s and public liability claims and road traffic accident (RTA) cases that “drop out” of the extended RTA portal, say insurance lawyers.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) issued a “call for evidence” on its proposals to extend the RTA portal to employer’s and public liability claims and higher- value RTA cases up to the value of £25,000 by April 2013.

The Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) says it broadly supports the extension. However, it wants the portal process to be kept simple and for it not to be deemed a failure when a claim has to drop out—instead a fast-track, fixed-costs regime would encourage early settlement.

Don Clarke, president of FOIL, says: “The portal is an ideal single point of entry to the claims process for all claims up to £25,000, giving claimants a simple process with which to start their claims, with the assurance of strict time limits and, for organisations, avoiding the potential for notifications being sent to the wrong departments.

“The process should be kept simple and not subject to an expensive development programme. It should not be seen as a one-size-fits-all process and, where claims need to drop out of the portal, which is more likely with employer’s liability and public liability claims, this should not be perceived as a causefor concern.”

However, NLJ columnist and City Law School Professor Dominic Regan says plans to introduce an employer’s liability portal by April 2013 are “ludicrous”.

While RTA claims are generally straightforward, an “abundant volume of law, common and statutory” applies to the workplace, he writes. Regan predicts that the “majority” of employment matters would “exit” the portal, which would delay rather than accelerate settlement.  

Karl Tonks, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, says the MoJ has not done its “groundwork” and is following an “unrealistic” timetable.

Issue: 7516 / Categories: Legal News
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