header-logo header-logo

04 January 2013
Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

RTA portal extension delay

Government postpones controversial plans to extend Road Traffic Accident portal scheme

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has postponed its controversial plans to extend the Road Traffic Accident portal scheme to personal injury claims worth up to £25,000, including employer and public liability claims.
Currently, the portal applies to RTA claims worth up to £10,000.

The extension had been due to take place in April. A new date is yet to be given by the MoJ, which said this week that “further details” would be announced soon.

NLJ columnist, Professor Dominic Regan said the delay was “no surprise at all” and showed “an outbreak of common sense in the MoJ”.

“The concept stinks and delay will not improve a hopeless idea. Sir Rupert Jackson thought it wrong to extend the portals so early — the RTA one was only created at the end of April 2010.”

An MoJ spokesperson said:‬ ‪“Earlier this year the government announced proposals to extend the road traffic accident scheme for personal injury claims to £25,000. ‪‬

“Following a legal challenge the Justice Secretary is now considering afresh the timing for implementation of the extended scheme.”‬

Several lawyers had cast doubt on the viability of the April deadline, as well as questioning how well such an extended scheme might work in practice.

Professor Paul Fenn, an adviser to the government on personal injury, said in a speech in December that the RTA Portal had been “successful in reducing costs and delay, but not by a lot; and to set against that, it seems to have resulted in lower damages for claimants.

“But it really needed a little more time to be conclusive about this, and for that reason I do think it may be too soon to extend its remit”.

Prof Fenn said there were risks regarding the incentive of defendants to admit liability, both in the existing scheme and in the proposals to extend it.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers was in the process of bringing a judicial review, on the basis of lack of consultation. It is now reconsidering its position.

Writing in NLJ in June, Prof Regan described the idea of an employer’s liability portal for April as “ludicrous”. He said a third of cases exited the portal, partly because this was cheaper for insurers where cases were worth less than £2,000, and partly because insurers did “not abide by the timetable applicable to portal work”. Employment cases tended to be more complex therefore there would be a high exit rate, he said.

 

Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll