header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 October 2011 / Deborah Evans
Issue: 7487 / Categories: Opinion , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Too high a price to pay?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Deborah Evans takes a critical look at the proposals in the Legal Aid Bill

In a just and moral society, an uninhibited access to justice should be available to all people, regardless of their means. It is one of the most important cornerstones of a modern civilisation. This is why many members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) are gravely worried about proposals in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

The proposals to restrict conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and to cut legal aid for victims of clinical negligence have some unjust consequences for injured people.

It is deeply unfair for victims to be made to use part of their damages to meet legal costs. Damages are intended to help compensate people for their pain and suffering. Victims do not choose to be injured. They should not pay for someone else’s mistake. Damages are not “winnings”—money does not “make it better” but it does help a victim live with the

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Is inequality undermining trust?
The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles
NLJ this week: Freemasons ruling backs police transparency over privacy claims
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons
NLJ this week: Right to grieve marks ‘major shift’ in employment law
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners
NLJ this week: AI privilege battles expose risks
Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost
NLJ this week: Experts warned—AI use must be transparent
New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll