header-logo header-logo

Small claims change not ‘proportionate’

24 May 2018
Issue: 7794 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
nlj_7794_news

Plans to raise limit pose significant access to justice concerns, the Bar warns

Barristers have joined MPs on the Justice Committee in criticising government proposals to raise the threshold for small claims.

The MPs’ report, Small claims limit for personal injury, warned last week of significant access to justice concerns if plans to raise the small claims limit from £1,000 to £2,000 for employers’ liability and public liability claims, and to £5,000 for road traffic accident-related personal injury, go ahead. The change would be made by secondary legislation.

A Bar Council spokesperson said: ‘Many who suffer such injuries are not in a position to afford legal help, often because an accident has resulted in a loss of income, yet they will be up against large and well-resourced insurance firms.

‘The Justice Select Committee rightly points out that the likely impact of raising the small claims track will be a substantial increase in the number of unrepresented litigants. This will place further strain on the resources of already stretched court services.’

It supported the Justice Committee’s recommendation that the limit be raised to £1,500 instead as ‘a more reasonable and proportionate measure’.

Bob Neill MP, chair of the Justice Committee, said the proposed increase raises concerns about the ‘financial and procedural barriers that claimants might face’. Although the Ministry of Justice is developing an electronic platform to help unrepresented claimants, Neill said ‘we remain to be convinced that this will be effective or sufficient’.

The report’s recommendations include that the government work with the Association of British Insurers to provide reliable data and monitor the extent to which premium reductions can be attributed to these reforms, reporting back after 12 months. While the committee felt that fraudulent and exaggerated claims must be prevented, ‘the common law right to compensation for negligence applies regardless of the value of the claim’ and said that the government should not increase the small claims limit for RTA (road traffic accident) PI claims to £5,000.

It recommends delaying the national roll-out of the electronic platform until at least April 2020, and that the senior judiciary’s examination of McKenzie friends conclude as soon as possible.

Issue: 7794 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll