header-logo header-logo

17 July 2009 / Amanda Stevens
Issue: 7378 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Streamlining traffic claims

Amanda Stevens asks whether upcoming reforms signify the dawn of a brave new world

For many years now there have been “preliminary discussions” among interested parties about streamlining lower value claims but the government’s consultation paper; Case Track Limits and the Claims Process for Personal Injury Claims published on 20 April 2007, resulted in a frenzy of activity from all stakeholders. The list of respondents runs to 13 pages. Some thought the issues were so complex that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had decided to effectively “park” them when there was still no government response a year later.

However, in July 2008 it published guiding principles for the new reforms and have subsequently hosted numerous confidential stakeholder gatherings to thrash out which will in effect be a wholly new process for resolving road traffic claims valued at up to £10,000. No one should mistake the new process as a Predictable Fees Regime Mark II as it represents a complete departure from the existing Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) process. Much training will need to be

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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